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
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
As the economy recovers, and with record job vacancies, our focus is on supporting parents to secure a role and to progress in work. This is based on clear evidence around the importance of parental employment, particularly where it is full time, in substantially reducing the risk of child poverty. Our multi-million pound plan for jobs, which has been expanded by £500 million, will help people to boost their wages and their prospects.
Alex Cunningham
Every time I walk down the high street in Stockton, I see the signs of poverty, with 51% of working-age families with children receiving universal credit, the majority of whom are in work. They are heading towards Christmas wondering how to put food on the table, never mind buy presents for their children. Will the Government accept responsibility for child poverty, recognise that the £20 uplift to universal credit could have made all the difference this Christmas, and tell me what parents should say to their children on Christmas morning, when there will be very little to celebrate?
David Rutley
The hon. Member talks about in-work poverty. Important steps were put forward in the Budget to improve the taper rate and the work allowance, which will really help many of his constituents—in fact, the vast majority of them, about 3,966.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I very much welcome the change to the taper rate for universal credit. This will be of enormous help in reducing child poverty for parents who are in work. As we run into the new year, could my hon. Friend now persuade the Chancellor to look carefully at further helping out by putting more money into the work allowances for many of those who are trapped and unable to get into work?
David Rutley
Having served as my right hon. Friend’s Parliamentary Private Secretary in the past, I know his passion for these issues. In the Budget, we set out that the work allowances were going to increase by £500, and that has made a big contribution. For those who are vulnerable, we have provided an extra £500 million of support, which will be a real help over the winter.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Despite the recommendations made by the Work and Pensions Committee, the British Government have no intention of developing a strategy to reduce child poverty. This stands in stark contrast to the SNP Scottish Government, who have declared tackling child poverty a national mission and are doubling their game-changing Scottish child payment to £20 a week, in contrast to this Government’s decision to cut universal credit by £20 a week. Why are the UK Government refusing to introduce proper proposals to tackle child poverty as we have done in Scotland?
David Rutley
We do have proper plans in place, and we are working hard to help parents to get into work. As the hon. Gentleman will know, 580,000 fewer children are in workless households than in 2010, so we are taking the action that is required. I know, having recently come to this post, how hard the Secretary of State is working across Government to tackle this vital issue.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The best route out of poverty is work, so does the Minister agree that it is important to get more people into work through our ambitious plan for jobs and through investment in Teesside such as our freeport programme, which will produce 18,000 jobs over the next five years?
David Rutley
Absolutely. It is pivotal that we get the plan for jobs working, along with local councils, local enterprise partnerships, hard-working Mayors and businesses. That is what we are seeing in Teesside, which is setting a great example for the rest of the country.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The uplift to universal credit was a temporary measure, so we have not completed an impact assessment on its withdrawal.
Layla Moran
Charities warned that the cut to universal credit would risk 100,000 people falling into homelessness, yet the Government ploughed on with it. Added to that is the freeze to housing benefits, with the result that more families cannot afford their rent and risk losing the roof over their head, and the fact that the Government have yet to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824, meaning that the very same people who are being made homeless could then become criminalised. Can the Secretary of State tell us how many people she expects to fall into homelessness, and what the Government are going to do about it?
Dr Coffey
We have provided £140 million of discretionary housing payments to councils, specifically to target that element. We boosted the local housing allowance in the covid Budget of 2020, and we have kept it at that rate. As the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), has just said, there has been a significant investment of about £2.5 billion in both increasing the work allowance and reducing the taper rate. My work coaches across the country are helping people to get into work day in, day out.
Helen Hayes
Many of my constituents have caring responsibilities and can only work part time, often at low wages. Does the Secretary of State recognise that families in this situation will generally lose more from the £20 a week cut to the standard allowance than they could ever hope to gain from the reduced taper? What does she have to say to those families?
Dr Coffey
I respect that people undertake care, and I am conscious that they often choose to do it in partnership with their local authority. We want to make sure that people take advantage of the increase in the national minimum wage, which will be coming in from April 2022, and of the changes that make it worthwhile for people to work extra hours and progress in work, which will be a big focus of what we do in 2022 and beyond.
Tonia Antoniazzi
Although the recent changes to the taper rate and the work allowance are welcome, they simply do not go far enough. The Resolution Foundation’s analysis found that huge increases in the cost of living will wipe out any gains. Even with these changes, three quarters of families on UC will still be worse off than if they had kept the £20 uplift to the standard allowance. Does the Secretary of State now see that the countless organisations, and even former Tory Work and Pensions Ministers, who argued for the uplift to be made permanent were actually right?
Dr Coffey
I am conscious of what the hon. Lady says, and I am sure she welcomes the £25 million of the £0.5 billion spent on the household support fund over this winter. I am also conscious that we want to make sure people will be better off working than not—that was the big change and the big announcement in the Budget. I am conscious that, right now, right across the country there are more people seeking work than ever before. More people are on payrolls than ever before and companies across the country are looking for workers, so we will be doing our best to help people who have not been working to get into work. We will also be responding to in-work progression early in the new year.
Mary Glindon
A survey by Christians Against Poverty found that 67% of its service users will struggle to pay for essentials in the coming months, with 35% already falling behind with bills and 27% now further into debt. What message does the Secretary of State have for these hard-pressed people in the season of good will?
Dr Coffey
I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome the £1.6 million that has been given to her local council specifically for targeted support through the household support fund. I am sure she will be as keen as I am to ensure that people seeking work in her constituency get the benefit of the extra work coach support. We have invested in that right across the country and we will continue to do so.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
Through our place-based approach, the DWP is working closely with employers, skills providers and other Departments to support people into work. Our jobcentres connect directly with local employers to discuss their recruitment needs and to offer tailored advice and support to help fill vacancies. This includes offering work experience opportunities and increasing the number of sector-based work academy programme places available.
John Lamont
I am delighted that more than 100 young people in the Scottish Borders have already started work through the kickstart scheme. What can the Government do to encourage employers to keep people on after the scheme ends?
Mims Davies
I am delighted, too. I am pleased to announce that more than 112,000 kickstart jobs have been started by young people across the UK. Many young people have found permanent jobs through kickstart, and we continue to work closely with employers to help young people find those long-term employment opportunities. We have helped employers to move kickstart participants into apprenticeships more easily by working with colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure employers receive the incentive payments for doing so.
Ben Bradley
How has the Department worked with DFE to ensure that people on universal credit who are accessing new training and qualifications through the various Government schemes do not lose their universal credit entitlement as a result?
Mims Davies
I assure my hon. Friend that we work closely with the Department for Education. With the existing flexibilities in the benefits system for people taking up that training, DWP Train and Progress allows universal credit claimants to participate in full-time work-related training for up to 12 weeks and to attend DFE skills boot camps for up to 16 weeks, including the recently announced HGV boot camps, which have more than 10,000 places available.
Andrew Bridgen
In North West Leicestershire, we are fortunate enough to have 1.1 jobs for every individual. However, a large amount of our unemployment is down to gaps in skills and training, so what will the Department do to solve that problem?
Mims Davies
Through my hon. Friend’s Jobcentre Plus support and the flexibilities I described in DWP TAP, his constituents can now access level 3 courses for free, skills boot camps and other training opportunities that my Department has ensured all UC claimants can access by extending the length of time they can participate in full-time work-related training. In addition, we are investing £10 million annually over the next three years in the sector-based work academy programmes, delivering those life-changing opportunities in those key sectors.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister talks the talk, but does she walk the walk? In places such as Huddersfield, we are creating a new syllabus for people who are 16, 18 and 21 to get into green jobs and green enterprise, but there is a lack of leadership from the Government and things are fragmented at the local level. Get your act together and do it properly. There is a whole green economy here, where we can save this fragile planet, but we need action now.
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking me about walking the walk. I assure him that through our national employer and partnership team, NEPT, and the work we do across government and through the green jobs taskforce, we are absolutely tackling that. We have a direct strand of work, which I was engaged with just at the end of last week, that is making sure that those skills, abilities and opportunities in his constituency, and everyone else’s, are there for those who want to go into that bit of the economy.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
The first Ways to Work centre opened in St Helens in June, with one to follow in Earlestown in the new year. It is locally designed and has been recently supported by Labour-led St Helens Council and the Liverpool city region respectively. It brings education, employment and training for local people together under one roof. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the project on making 1,300 unique interventions in just six months? Does she agree that this type of local model works? If so, will she help me to ensure it gets the funding it needs to be sustainable?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for everything he has mentioned, because we are doing that across the UK in 150 brand-new youth hubs. If he will listen to my answer, I hope he will understand that we are linked locally to the economy; we are keen for those job outcomes to come to his constituents and more widely, and this is being done through local interventions and local engagement.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Tory trope is that UC helps people into work, but it has been a few years since the National Audit Office said that there is no way of measuring the outcomes and success of UC. So will the Minister tell me what measures are now in place to measure the outcomes of UC in getting people into work, particularly at the local level?
Mims Davies
We absolutely measure the outcomes of all our programmes, particularly the sector-based work academy programmes. Of course, skills are devolved in Scotland. In my recent engagement with the Welsh Government and at the Welsh Affairs Committee, I pointed out that outcomes are not measured in Wales. I think this is a thing we should be doing in all devolved areas.
Mr Speaker
We now welcome the shadow Minister to her new post. I call Alison McGovern.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. People across the country who have had a really hard time at work in the past year need DWP Ministers focused on their jobs. It will not have escaped your notice that it was reported over the weekend that the DWP has joined the last Christmas naughty list of Whitehall lock-ins during lockdown, but it is not me the Secretary of State should be apologising to—it is the more than 100,000 young people who will not be helped by the time the underperforming kickstart scheme comes to a close before Christmas. So may I ask the Minister: when kickstart comes to a halt and thousands of young people still need help, what then?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and welcome her to her post. I know that she has a strong interest in young people in every constituency doing as well as they can. Kickstart has not underperformed. Let us be honest: more than 112,000 young people have joined the programme. Of course, when we created the programme, we expected an unemployment level of perhaps 12%; it is just over 4%. Let us focus on the outcomes for those young people, which we are tracking carefully. We are linking up with the Department for Education to ensure that the traineeships and apprenticeships are there.
I know that visiting her jobcentre is on the hon. Lady’s to-do list. When she does so, I am sure she will hear amazing stories about what is happening to young people locally.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Minister mentioned young people. The new inland border facility in Holyhead means that more than 200 jobs are coming to the island of Anglesey. How will the Minister ensure that those new jobs go to local young people?
Mims Davies
My hon. Friend is such an assiduous Member of Parliament in standing up for Ynys Môn—I salute her for that. We have been working through the local jobcentre. In fact, she helped reopen the jobcentre and make sure it was safe, alongside the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman). Working with local employers and the jobcentre, she has made sure that there are buses and that people can access the jobs that are there. We will continue to work with her and the jobcentre on that.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
The Government are taking action to make work pay for low-income households. As was announced at the Budget, we are reducing the universal credit taper rate and increasing the work allowance so that working people can keep more of their earnings. We have introduced a £500-million household support fund so that local authorities can help those on the lowest incomes with their food and utility costs.
Rachel Hopkins
About 12,000 households in Luton South are claiming universal credit, and one in 10 people say that they could not afford a £5 per month increase in their cost of living. Does the Minister accept that his Government’s failure to tackle increasing rents and energy costs will impact the poorest in society more and push more of my constituents into poverty?
David Rutley
I think the hon. Member will welcome the fact that the vast majority of the nearly 6,000 claimants in work will gain from the reduction in the taper rate and the increase in work allowances in the Budget, which is terrific. For those who are vulnerable, £1.8 million has been made available to local authorities to help them through the household support fund.
Stephen Timms
A single father who is unable to work on health grounds told the Select Committee in September that removing the £20 a week uplift would force him to skip meals so that his children did not have to. Christians Against Poverty, which supports him, says that he now cannot afford the absolute basics: food, heating and bus fares to take his children to school. He certainly cannot afford to buy his children Christmas presents. With prices rising so fast, is not the social security safety net just too low?
David Rutley
As I just set out to the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), we have introduced the household support fund. In Newham, £3.3 million is available to help people exactly like the right hon. Gentleman’s constituent with the challenges they are facing this winter.
Kate Hollern
In effect, the new household support scheme, about which we have heard quite a bit today, replaces the £20 universal credit uplift with £1.60. Can the Minister tell me how that will help families through this harsh winter, especially as increasing numbers of people will have to self-isolate? It certainly will not do much for the more than 16% of families in Blackburn who live in fuel poverty—households that are now faced with even higher fuel prices in the winter cost crunch. Will he reconsider the rate of the universal credit standard allowance and ensure that it rises in line with the cost of living?
David Rutley
I can reassure the hon. Member that steps are in place to help people through various stages of the employment journey. For those who are in work, there is the universal credit taper and work allowance. For those who are out of work, as the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), has said, there is the plan for jobs, which is making a big difference in people’s lives. For those who are vulnerable and need extra help, there is the household support fund, and in Blackburn and Darwen that comes to £1.6 million over this winter.
Daniel Zeichner
Everyone in the food sector knows that costs are rising dramatically and that margins are being eroded. We are already seeing price rises in the shops. The Food and Drink Federation thinks that it is £3 a week for households. Out of the £5 that has already been mentioned, does the Minister understand just what pressure that puts on vulnerable households? What will the Government do to protect them when those price rises bite?
David Rutley
It is really important that we get more people into work, and there are 1.3 million vacancies. We need to help those who are unemployed into work, which will be the biggest, most sustainable way that we can get them on to their own two feet. As I have said, we have the household support fund, and in Cambridgeshire that comes to £3.6 million, which will help the people whom the hon. Member is talking about.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
With housing costs a major driver of poverty, the Government have decided yet again to freeze the local housing allowance, hitting millions of renters. As the Minister well knows, neither discretionary payments nor the winter hardship fund will do anything like meet the shortfall in that gap. Meanwhile, rents are anything but frozen and more than half of all renters have a shortfall between their rents and the help available. Will the Minister tell us when the Government decided not to link the support for housing costs to actual real world rents, and what assessment have they made of the impact of that on household incomes?
David Rutley
As the hon. Member will remember, we increased the local housing allowance rates to the 30th percentile of local rents in April 2020. That is a boost of £1 billion in support and an average gain of £600 for each person in private rented accommodation who needed housing support. We have also maintained that at cash levels, which will be a real help, and there are also discretionary housing payments for those who need them as well.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
To help pensioners with rising household bills, will the Government do more to promote pension credit? In the Kettering constituency, almost 18,000 retired people claim the state pension, but fewer than 2,000 claim pension credit, yet this can help with council tax bills, heating costs and so on. Across the country, 1 million pensioners are not claiming the pension credit to which they are entitled, so can the Government do more to increase the uptake of that benefit?
David Rutley
My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner on these matters, but we also have a doughty Pensions Minister who is working incredibly hard to increase the take-up. I also highlight to him that, as I am sure he knows, winter fuel payments and cold weather payments are also available to help pensioners on low incomes over the winter period.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
Let me take this opportunity to welcome the newcomers to the Opposition Front Bench.
The state pension is the foundation of support for older people and, under this Government, the full yearly amount of the basic state pension will be more than £2,300 higher in April than in 2010. The latest figures show that 200,000 fewer pensioners are in absolute poverty compared with 2009-10.
Karl Turner
Fred from east Hull was left without any income whatsoever for several months earlier this year because the Department for Work and Pensions failed to pay him his state pension, to which he was rightfully entitled. When my office intervened, he eventually got paid, but it took us several weeks to sort it out. When people such as Fred in areas like mine are already facing a cost of living crisis, fuel poverty and the effects of the pandemic, does the Minister feel that he should apologise to Fred and many others?
Guy Opperman
I cannot comment on the individual case, but I can say that the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there was a backlog over the summer period by reason of covid and many other factors, which we took great steps to address. A dedicated team of several hundred individuals ensured that we caught up with the backlog, and we are now operating business as usual.
Dr Huq
With winter biting and energy companies going to the wall, approximately 13.2% of households in Ealing Central and Acton are in fuel poverty—that is 6,864 pensioners struggling to heat their homes. Will the Minister agree with Labour and cut VAT on household heating bills during these winter months? The Conservatives have pilfered enough of our manifesto before; they could do this and make a real difference to pensioners.
Guy Opperman
The hon. Lady will be aware that we spend £2 billion on the winter fuel payments. There is also the cold weather payments fund, the household support fund, and the pension credit energy rebate. There are a whole host of ways in which support can be found for her constituents.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I know my right hon. and hon. Friends in the ministerial team are doing their best, but is there any encouragement they can give, perhaps in conjunction with the Treasury, to the women of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign who lost out on the state pension start age?
Guy Opperman
With respect to my right hon. Friend, that matter has been decided in the courts on two occasions—in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal—and it is not proposed to change the policy.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
The Government have consistently failed to stand up for the interests of pensioners on modest incomes. Food prices are up, gas prices are up and electricity prices are up. The cost of living is going up. Yet despite this, the Government are refusing to cut VAT on fuel, even though they have had higher than expected VAT receipts from across the economy, which would allow them to do exactly that and offer much-needed help to pensioners. To make matters worse, the Government are also failing to increase the take-up of pension credit. When will they finally start offering real help to our pensioners?
Guy Opperman
That is a bit rich. When the last Labour Government were in power, the state pension was under £100; it is now going up to £185 going forward. It is almost double what it was before thanks to the triple lock introduced by this Government and the coalition Government. It is also very much the case that pension credit take-up is actually going up, not down. Over the two years of the pandemic, both the basic and new state pension will have increased by more than prices thanks to the cumulative effects of the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2020 and the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)
The entire Government are committed to transforming the everyday lives of disabled people through the national disability strategy because we want to build back better and fairer. A number of commitments have already been delivered. I chair quarterly meetings with the ministerial disability champions to drive progress.
Mark Fletcher
Increasing employment opportunities is key to supporting independent living for disabled people and people with health conditions. Will the Minister reaffirm our commitment to supporting 1 million disabled people into work by 2027?
Chloe Smith
I certainly will. The Government remain absolutely committed to that. There is more to do but progress has been made since 2017. The number of disabled people in employment has increased by 850,000, and the disability employment gap has closed by about five percentage points since 2013.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I suppose, looking at it favourably, at least the long-promised strategy is now published, but the failure to co-produce the strategy with disabled people or disabled people’s organisations is unfortunate. What does the Minister say to people with disabilities and their organisations who have been left disappointed at what they call a “tokenistic” strategy?
Chloe Smith
The exercise leading up to the publication of that strategy was one of the biggest listening exercises ever undertaken with disabled people by Government. I am proud of it and proud of the result that has been published. It is my personal priority to implement it and to continue listening to disabled people and disabled people’s organisations. Indeed, there is a commitment, and several others through the strategy, to do more of precisely that.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I commend the Minister for driving forward the national disability strategy with a real zest. My inspirational constituent Becky Maddern of the Benjamin’s Smile charity champions accessible play parks for families up and down the country, which became a key commitment in the national disability strategy. Will the Minister reconfirm that this will remain a key priority for her in her cross-Government work?
Chloe Smith
I certainly will. I pay tribute to Becky Maddern, who I too find inspirational. Indeed, I was thinking about her only at the weekend as I visited a playground with my own children and looked at the range of swings and equipment that was available. This is incredibly important because disabled children deserve to play as much as their brothers, sisters and friends. That underlines why our strategy is a very wide-ranging one that goes across the full range of public services and into culture, leisure and play as well, because it all matters greatly.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
One hidden disability often is an acquired brain injury, and 10 days ago, the Government committed to creating a national strategy for acquired brain injury. Will this Department ensure that it fully co-operates with the programme board, which will be set up in the new year, so that we can radically transform the opportunities and chances in life for those who have had an acquired brain injury?
Chloe Smith
I am very grateful for that question, and I pay tribute to the history that the hon. Member has and the work that he is doing in this area. Two Ministers in this Department have some personal direct experience of these issues, so yes, the Department for Work and Pensions will be keen to make good progress with that work.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
As announced in the spending review, the DWP will enhance its support for universal credit claimants who are in work. From April next year, they will have access to a dedicated work coach to help individuals remove barriers, enabling them to progress in work. We will be introducing new Jobcentre Plus specialists, known as district progression leads, who will work with local employers and partners to identify progression opportunities, with support from work coaches.
Nick Fletcher
Does my hon. Friend agree that with the introduction of various skills initiatives by this Government and a booming job market, people across the UK, and in particular in Don Valley, will be finding it easier than ever to get on the job ladder and progress in their chosen career?
Mims Davies
I agree with my hon. Friend. The extensive support that the Government have offered through our plan for jobs has protected, supported and created jobs in Don Valley and beyond. In his constituency, for example, we have continued funding our successful sector-based work academy programme in new opportunities such as rail, warehousing, care, security and hospitality, where someone gets a guaranteed interview as part of the programme, which is offered to all his constituents.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The Government’s increase in the living wage does not make it the real living wage. It does not reflect the increased cost of living and it does not adequately support young people under the age of 23. Why are the UK Government refusing to increase the national living wage to the real living wage?
Mims Davies
I understand that it is around 60% of the median wage. The reality is that through kickstart, there will be young people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency who will have got on the jobs ladder sooner and earlier than ever before in sectors that one could not have believed, from viticulture to digital marketing to working in architecture—all different areas. That is because of the Government intervening in jobs and opportunities that can lead to apprenticeships, traineeships and progressing in work.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
The reduction in the taper rate and increase in the work allowances mean that 1.9 million households will keep on average an extra £1,000 a year, representing an effective tax cut for low-income working households in receipt of universal credit that will be worth £2.2 billion a year in 2022-23. We are allowing working households to keep more of what they earn and strengthening incentives to move and progress in work.
Karl MᶜCartney
Unlike the legacy system, which has in-built cliff edges, universal credit ensures that it always pays to take on more hours. Will my hon. Friend commit to working with employers, especially those in my constituency of Lincoln, in low-pay sectors to ensure that they can help their employees understand that?
David Rutley
Throughout our job network, our employer partnership teams and employment advisers are working closely with local employers to ensure that they help claimants understand how best to benefit from the recent positive changes to universal credit taper rates and work allowances. I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his fantastic shirt, will assist with his characteristic energy with this important task.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
We are investing in tailored work coach support for young people claiming universal credit and searching for work through our enhanced DWP youth offer. As of 5 December, as announced, 112,000 young people have started a kickstart job. Until March next year, young people can start that key six-month placement, which will support even more young people at risk of long-term unemployment.
Robbie Moore
Whether through the apprenticeship programme run by fantastic businesses such as Byworth Boilers in Keighley or training programmes run by Keighley College, my constituency has no shortage of people who are passionate about getting young people into the workplace. What further work is my hon. Friend’s Department doing to ensure that businesses, colleges and others can work together to create the best opportunities for our young people to get into work?
Mims Davies
The opportunity to speak about youth hubs is too tempting. We have 150 new youth hubs across the DWP, crucially bringing together local partners from employment, training and skills to support young people. The Keighley youth hub, based in Keighley College, is a prime example, working in close collaboration with SkillsHouse, One Workforce and the community-led local development programmes. I hope that sells the youth hubs to you, Mr Speaker.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)
People on legacy benefits with severe disabilities are most likely to get employment and support allowance. Income-related ESA claimants may be entitled to the enhanced disability premium or the severe disability premium. Claimants may also be eligible for personal independence payments to help with the extra costs of living faced by disabled people.
Judith Cummins
I am sure the whole House agrees that a good society is one that helps those in great need. I have a constituent in great need. She was in receipt of income support and the severe disability premium, but her child is now aged five so she has been told to claim universal credit, which will cause her severe disability payment to end. What assurances can the Minister give my constituent that we are still in a good society and that, by being forced into this change in her benefits, she will be no worse off?
Chloe Smith
It would be difficult for me to comment on the hon. Member’s constituent’s precise circumstances, although I am happy to look at the case if she wants to write to me with details. As a general point, to support claimants previously entitled to the severe disability premium who moved to universal credit after a change of circumstances, there are transitional payments protections in place.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The DWP commissioned NatCen to undertake research on the uses of health and disability benefits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) eloquently outlined, that research, which assesses the adequacy of benefits for disabled people, is vital. Several requests have been made for the report to be made public, including by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, but they have all been refused. Will the Minister release the report? If not, can she explain what the Government are hiding?
Chloe Smith
The short answer is no. The longer answer was given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Work and Pensions Committee only last week.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)
There is a little repetition with the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins). To support claimants previously entitled to the severe disability premium who moved to universal credit following a change of circumstances, we have introduced severe disability premium-related transitional payments. Those eligible, depending on their specific circumstances, will receive a transitional element of up to £405 a month.
Sarah Green
I thank the Minister for that answer. One of my constituents was previously in receipt of employment support allowance and housing benefit with a severe disability premium. Earlier this year, she relocated to my constituency to be closer to her daughter for support. That triggered a transition to universal credit and, even with transitional protection payments, she is more than £70 a month worse off, which, in the face of the current cost of living squeeze, is having a significant impact. Will the Minister meet me about this case? What additional steps will the Government take to support people such as my constituent who are being unfairly financially penalised by the move to universal credit?
Chloe Smith
I am happy to meet the hon. Lady, who, as a relatively new member of the House, I can see is getting stuck into casework. I welcome her hard work in doing so. The design of universal credit has concentrated support on the most severely disabled. That can be taken in alignment with other points that I have made, including on the support available through the national disability strategy and the ideas put forward in our health and disability Green Paper, as well as the many other things that the Department is doing. I hope that they may be of some support and help to her constituent.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Our plan for jobs is working. Since April 2020, over 1.9 million people have moved into work from the universal credit intensive work search group. We have done that by supporting thousands of people through programmes such as kickstart, restart and sector-based work academy programmes—SWAPs—to get back into work, with over 110,000 young people being supported through kickstart alone. There are over 200,000 kickstart jobs still waiting to be filled in the final months of the programme.
Bill Esterson
Earlier, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), referred to the shortage of HGV drivers, and retailers report fivefold delays in the delivery of products, including wine and spirits, so I am wondering whether the Secretary of State’s scheme is helping to address the shortage of drivers in the run-up to Christmas. How many lorry drivers have started work as a result of her Department’s employment schemes?
Dr Coffey
I think it is worth explaining to the hon. Gentleman that a couple of different schemes are ongoing. Our principal role is to help people who are not working to get into jobs. We partner with people such as the Mayor of West Midlands, but also with specific programmes in the east midlands. More significant work is being done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, where we have bootcamps working and people are actually getting into jobs. A really important part of what we can do through SWAPs is getting people into new careers that they had never thought about.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Thanks to our taper rate cut and the increased work allowances announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, almost 2 million households will now benefit from a cash boost worth £1,000 a year on average. Thanks to diligent work by my officials, we have brought this change in a week earlier than planned, so that up to 500,000 more working people can get that extra boost before Christmas. We are also delivering today a less welcome early Christmas present to criminals who target our benefits system and steal from taxpayers, with a £500 million cash injection to root out fraudulent benefit claims and stop scammers. Finally and importantly, very much at the top of my mind today is the booster programme and the acceleration scheme. I am very pleased that our jobs army is going to become part of the jabs army, as DWP civil servants right across the country join the Government’s effort to get as many people boosted as possible.
Selaine Saxby
My right hon. Friend has already touched on the impact that the recent changes in the taper rate and work allowances will have on claimants’ net income, but will she expand on this? Also, will she consider a major advertising campaign to highlight that now is an excellent time to be in work?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend, who is of course on the Select Committee, is very wise in her suggestions. That is exactly the sort of communications that we will be doing in the coming months. This is particularly of interest for people on working tax credits, where we know that the cliff edges, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) mentioned, can be a real barrier to people working extra hours. Those sorts of communications programmes will be released as we continue to try to help more people into work and to progress in work as well.
Mr Speaker
I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to his new position.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. May I ask the Secretary of State about Christmas? My question is not what her latest recommendation is should I find myself under the mistletoe, or indeed whether she hosted karaoke Christmas parties in lockdown in her office, but a very simple one: how many children will go hungry this Christmas?
Dr Coffey
I want to put on the record that no karaoke parties were hosted by me during lockdown; the last time I did karaoke with the right hon. Gentleman was a couple of years ago. I am conscious that he has raised a very serious point about children this Christmas, and that is why we have been working relentlessly on making sure that people can get into work and progress in work, but have also set aside half a billion pounds for the household support fund, half of which is entirely ringfenced for families with children.
Jonathan Ashworth
I fear the Secretary of State’s answer betrays poverty of ambition. The last Labour Government lifted 1 million children out of poverty, and we did not need footballers to run campaigns on child hunger. With universal credit still being cut for many families, prices going up in the shops, heating bills going up and taxes going up because this lot voted for them, can she guarantee that in 2022 child poverty and the shame of destitution will not also be going up?
Dr Coffey
I forgot to welcome the former shadow Secretary of State for Health to his new position. The right hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that his party opposed extra funding for the NHS through the health and social care levy, which we voted for. The different elements of trying to get people into work are key to lifting many more children out of child poverty. We should also flag up the £1 billion of child maintenance we have collected in the last year; we will keep doubling down on that to ensure deadbeat dads pay for their kids and help to lift their children out of poverty.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I believe it may be more appropriate for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Education to respond to this question, but I will happily flag up to the DfE anything that deters young people from entering apprenticeships and the labour market, and being able to move into long-term work.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
We do not talk often enough in society about old-age poverty. Besides the inadequate state pension and the latest triple-lock betrayal, another factor is the low uptake of pension credit: about 1 million pensioners in the UK miss out on £1,600 a year on average, with single women being most affected. We have heard the Pensions Minister say countless times that the Government want to increase the take-up of pension credit, so why is the Department refusing to introduce a proper take-up strategy for pension credits and other benefits, as we have done in Scotland?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
We are doing a huge amount to increase the take-up of pension credit. I have met repeatedly with the BBC, and we have set up a pension credit taskforce which involves energy companies, the Local Government Association, various banks, BT and others. The reality is that pension credit take-up is increasing. It is also the case that we have never spent as much money on pensioners as we do now—up to £129 billion, of which the state pension is £105 billion—and pension credit is the highest it has ever been.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)
Statutory sick pay is just one part of our welfare safety net and the wider Government support offered to people in times of need. We have been able to look closely at statutory sick pay during the pandemic, but more consideration is needed and it certainly should not be looked at in isolation.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to point out the opportunities for people on legacy benefits. They may be better off on UC, but if not, they should wait for the managed migration programme, where they will have transitional protection. It is also important to note that benefits calculators are readily available online, and the Department funds Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland for the help to claim programme. I am sure such organisations can give individual support. We will be resuming our plan to move to UC in 2022.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
Dr Coffey
Far from it. I recognise the hon. Lady is trying to stand up for her constituents, but she should also recognise the significant increases in benefits that have been provided, whether that is for people of pensionable age—about £129 billion—or the increase in financial support to people with disabilities. She should recognise that we will continue to strive at local level through our jobcentres and Jobcentre Plus, and through our automation of things such as the warm home discount, so that people do not even have to go looking for that sort of energy support, and the household support fund, from which many of her constituents will benefit.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
Mims Davies
The DWP and the Department for Education are working with other Government Departments on priority sector action plans in construction, digital, manufacturing, care and logistics. One example is the DWP national employer and partnership team, NEPT, which also has a dedicated green team rightly focusing on filling vacancies in green jobs here and now.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Dr Coffey
The right hon. Lady is right to consider the vulnerable people in her constituency. We looked at some of the policy choices we were making, published in our response to “Health is Everyone’s Business”, in which aspects of sick pay were considered, but there was a change in ministerial appointments near that time. We continue our discussions, and I am confident that we will continue to try to make progress on this element, but it is important to say that those who are required by law to stay at home are still eligible for a Test and Trace payment, administered through the Department of Health and Social Care.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The announcement made last week by my right hon. Friend regarding historical institutional abuse will have been greeted very warmly by those people who were abused in Northern Ireland but now live in Great Britain. On behalf of the Select Committee, which did a lot of work in this area, may I thank her for listening to our representations, making this important policy change and ensuring that there is equity and fairness in this important area of financial support and redress?
Dr Coffey
I thank my hon. Friend. He will be aware that in the original primary legislation, which allowed for disregard, only Northern Ireland specifically was considered, so I am very pleased to have brought that disregard forward. At the same time, we wanted to take a consistent approach, so I am pleased that we will be applying the same disregards to the forthcoming payments being made by the Scottish Government and through, I think, Islington and Lambeth Councils. I commend him and his Committee Members for their pursuit of the matter.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
A free university-level education is a monumental benefit of living in Scotland. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with her colleagues in the Department for Education about the benefits of making higher levels of education accessible and the impact that would have on the employability of young people?
Dr Coffey
I am conscious that the hon. Lady thinks that just because there is a free course, those people who are most disadvantaged in her country will take advantage of it. In fact, that has not been the case; we see far more people in England from less privileged backgrounds getting into university and benefiting from that. It is important that we have a balanced approach, recognising the importance of level 3, 4 and 5 apprenticeships in particular and the fact that, once they have graduated, those people will be better off financially, except compared with those in Russell Group universities, within 10 years.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
This time last year, the Canadian Government asked the UK Government to enter into talks to bring about pension parity for pensioners like Royal Navy veteran Alan Wren, who was forced to work until he was 78 years of age because his pension had been frozen in Canada. The Government refused to enter into those discussions. What does the Secretary of State say to veterans such as Alan and the 492,000 other pensioners who are trapped on meagre state pensions, all because they live in the wrong country? In Alan’s case, the country is a commonwealth and NATO partner and ally.
Guy Opperman
As the hon. Gentleman and I have met and spoken about this matter in the past, he will be aware that the UK state pension is payable worldwide and that all veterans are treated the same as non-veterans when it comes to the payment of the UK state pension overseas.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
In an earlier answer, the Secretary of State mentioned that she has not sung karaoke for a number of years, but I seem to recall she was singing, “I’m having the time of my life” just a few months ago, the night before the universal credit uplift was removed. On that point, I recently visited a Trussell Trust foodbank in my constituency, where staff and volunteers raised serious concerns that the reduction in universal credit will push more and more families into poverty. Will the Department concede that the cut to the uplift will mean that more households will become reliant on foodbanks?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady should be aware that there was a temporary uplift, reflecting what was happening with the covid pandemic, which was extended. I am sure she will appreciate the change in the taper rate and the work allowance. Jobcentres will be helping her constituents to get into work. If I may, I will just put on record my thanks to people involved in a variety of ways, whether in foodbanks, food recycling or similar, because it is important that we all continue to work in our local communities to support our constituents.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker, is it in order for me to mention the B word in this Chamber? If it is okay, I want to say Blair—Tony Blair. Has the Secretary of State seen his remark that if we want to give real skills to people, it is FE colleges that are the key to skills? Tony Blair’s idea is that we upgrade the profile of all FE colleges to polytechnics and that we put the resources in to accompany that? What does she think of Blair’s ideas?
Dr Coffey
What I noticed was that when the hon. Gentleman referred to Tony Blair there was silence on the Labour Benches. What I will say is that we are absolutely committed to the lifetime skills guarantee. We are levelling up across the country and making sure that relevant courses get people into work. I am really pleased that we are united in recognising that that is the most important thing our Department can achieve.
Metropolitan Police: Stephen Port Murders Inquest
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
(Urgent Question:) To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will make a statement on the Metropolitan Police and the inquest into the deaths of Anthony Walgate, Gabriel Kovari, Daniel Whitworth, and Jack Taylor.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with the families and friends of Anthony Walgate, Gabriel Kovari, Daniel Whitworth, and Jack Taylor. The stories we have all read, of their lives and terrible deaths, have moved and horrified the country.
The Government and the people we serve expect the highest standards from the police as they carry out their vital work protecting the public and investigating serious crimes. The conclusions of the inquest have shown that those standards were not met, and that investigative failures probably contributed to the deaths of three of the young men. The Metropolitan police has accepted as much. There are now serious questions for it to answer. It is profoundly important that the force takes responsibility for past failings and makes sure they are not repeated.
The primarily accountability body for the Met is the Mayor of London and the London Assembly, but the Metropolitan Police Service has assured us it is putting in place significant improvements, including: more and better trained investigators; new structures so that intelligence teams, specialists and officers on the ground can work more closely to identify and link crimes much earlier; and work to develop a greater understanding of the drug GHB and its use as a weapon in sexual assaults. It is also essential that the police build trust with all London’s communities and that includes LGBT+ community. I know that the Commissioner and her team are committed to doing so, at a time when the trust the public have in them has been seriously shaken by recent events.
It is, of course, right that the police handling of cases such as these is subject to independent scrutiny. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services has been asked by the deputy Mayor of London and the commissioner to conduct an inspection into the standard of the Metropolitan Police Service’s investigations, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct is now assessing whether to reopen, either in full or in part, the investigation into the way that the Metropolitan Police Service handled the inquiries into the deaths of these young men.
The police perform an enormously important function in our society. It is a job that, on the whole, they do with skill, courage and professionalism. Only last Thursday, I attended the police bravery awards and heard stories of selfless heroism, but when things go wrong, it is profoundly important that lessons are learned and applied. We will continue to hold the Metropolitan police service and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime to account in making sure that the failures highlighted by these truly awful cases are addressed.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. I have to say to the Minister that this happened in London, but it might and could have happened anywhere in the country, and therefore, it is a matter for him. The premature deaths of four young, gay men, who were robbed of their lives, is an unspeakable tragedy, especially because six years after it happened, it has now finally been publicly conceded that the deaths of three of them—Gabriel Kovari, Daniel Whitworth and Jack Taylor —could have been avoided if the police had properly investigated the killing of the first victim, Anthony Walgate.
The litany of police errors is simply horrific, including the refusal to check the murderer’s laptop because it was too expensive; the failure to engage appropriately with the partners and families; the failure to check the authenticity of a fake suicide note; the failure to check CCTV; and the incomprehensible failure to link the deaths when three of the bodies were found in or close to St Margaret’s churchyard in my constituency.
Does the Minister agree with the friends, partners and families that the Metropolitan police service is prejudiced and institutionally homophobic? Does he at the very least agree that, given the facts of the cases, homophobia must have been a factor that influenced the actions and inactions of the police? In these circumstances, will he please order a full public inquiry to examine whether there is institutional homophobia in the police service? Does he agree that such an inquiry is vital if the police are to gain the trust of the LGBTQ+ community? Does he further agree that the inquiry is also vital to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again?
Seventeen police officers were investigated by the IOPC in 2015. None was sacked and five have since been promoted. Is the Independent Office for Police Conduct fit for purpose? What action has the Minister taken to ensure that all police officers treat gay partners in the same way as they would any other partner, with appropriate respect and a proper duty of care? Action by the Home Office, the Metropolitan police and the Mayor is essential if the homophobia in our police service is to be properly and thoroughly investigated and addressed.
Kit Malthouse
I agree with the right hon. Lady that this was an unspeakable tragedy, which has moved all of us in its dreadfulness. I cannot imagine what those families have gone through, not least in living through the deaths of their loved ones, but also with the investigation and this dreadful but necessary process of an inquest and investigation thereafter.
Although there have obviously been shortcomings in this investigation, which the Met has admitted and on which it has expressed a profound desire to improve, it is not my experience that the Metropolitan police is institutionally homophobic. Obviously, however, the commissioner and the Mayor have commissioned Baroness Casey to look at the culture of the Metropolitan police in all its aspects following the awful killing of Sarah Everard. I understand that her work will include examining whether prejudice such as the right hon. Lady outlined exists in the force. It is definitely the case, as I think is recognised by City Hall and Metropolitan police leadership, that there is a job of work to be done to rebuild trust between that organisation and the people it serves in all their great tapestry in the capital that I had the honour to serve for eight years.
On the Independent Office for Police Conduct, as I said, it is considering whether to reopen, in full or in part, the investigations that it undertook in the light of any new evidence that may be presented as part of the inquest. As the right hon. Lady will know, there were recently reforms to the IOPC when it replaced the Independent Police Complaints Commission and there was a change in regulations last year to try to improve its performance. I have confidence in it as an organisation to try to get to the bottom of these often difficult and complicated issues. As I say, however, until we see whether it is going to reopen the investigations, I cannot comment on that further.
My reading of the apologies from senior Met officers is that they are very heartfelt—from Helen Ball, whom I know well and who is an officer of great commitment, and from Stuart Cundy, who leads on homicide for the National Police Chiefs’ Council across the country—and they recognise that there were serious failures in this case. I know that they are all committed to facing those failures and improving in future.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
All right-thinking Members of the House support our police and understand that they do a tremendous job, often in difficult circumstances, but cases such as this leave us in an awful position because as the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) outlined, there are some incredibly difficult questions to be answered. Does the Minister agree that police up and down the country need to be held to the highest standards, whether on homophobia or any other issue? We need to tackle and root out any prejudice and ensure that this sort of case can never be allowed to happen again.
Kit Malthouse
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Although it is possible for us to hold inquiries, make structural changes and urge the organisations to examine their internal cultures, in the end, it is a matter of leadership and the signal that is sent by senior police officers about how junior officers should comport themselves and the confidence that officers should have internally to call out bad behaviour, whether that is homophobia, racism, sexism, misogyny or whatever it might be.
The inquiries that are under way, the work that the National Police Chiefs’ Council is doing, and the inquiries within the Metropolitan police, will put us in a better place to face those unpleasant phenomena within the organisations. My hon. Friend is right to point out that every day, up and down the land, thousands of police officers do remarkable things and we should never forget that.
Mr Speaker
I welcome shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper back to the Front Bench.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
It is good to be back, if sadly on such a difficult issue. All our hearts will be with the family and friends of Anthony Walgate, Gabriel Kovari, Daniel Whitworth and Jack Taylor, because these were vile murders by a man who targeted young gay men. They were all found close to each other and close to his house. It is incomprehensible that the dots were not joined.
The jurors’ verdict that fundamental failings in the police investigation probably contributed to three deaths is extremely serious. Three young men might otherwise have been alive today. The jurors heard damning evidence about lack of basic checks, lack of professional curiosity, serious workforce pressures, long delays on digital forensics and serious failures in leadership. Crucially, the victims’ families have raised serious concerns about homophobia blighting the investigation and the way that they as partners and relatives were treated, though the jurors were directed not to consider that.
Rightly, the Met has recognised failings and is making changes. We await the coroner’s prevention of future deaths report. Given the seriousness of the issue, however, does the Minister not agree that a further independent inquiry will be required to get to the truth of how and why it was possible for things to go so badly wrong? Does he accept that the families need answers, which they do not have right now, on how far homophobia, prejudice or unconscious bias affected the investigation?
The Home Office response is too weak, given the seriousness of the case. The Minister and the Home Secretary have a responsibility to be relentless in pursuit of the truth to ensure that the families get the answers that they need and deserve. The IOPC will look at individuals, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services at homicide procedures and Louise Casey at the Met culture, but none of them is addressing the full scale of what went wrong in this case—whether homophobia was involved, and what changes are needed not just in the Met but in police forces across the country to make sure that this can never happen again. May I please urge the Minister to take another look at this case?
Kit Malthouse
Obviously I recognise the deep concern about these investigations, not least in regard to—the right hon. Lady, whom I welcome to her new position, drew attention to this—the seemingly incomprehensible nature of the dots not being drawn together. I have to say that that has often been a problem not just for the Metropolitan police but for other police forces, when seemingly obvious patterns of behaviour have failed to be linked together in other types of crime. We saw it previously in the Met in the case of John Worboys, a serial rapist whose pattern of offending was never pieced together. However, I am reassured that they have made significant changes structurally, aligning their homicide teams with their basic borough command units so that there can be better co-ordination, and making sure that there is better analysis of patterns of offending to establish at an early stage whether there are a linked series of crimes.
As for the right hon. Lady’s primary question about the independent inquiry, as I have said, the Deputy Mayor has commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate to look at the investigative practices, while the Met have themselves commissioned Dame Louise Casey to look at their culture internally and the IOPC is considering whether to reopen any investigations. In the light of those three steps, we will obviously have to keep the situation under review, but for the moment we want to see how they conclude.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Everyone is rightly horrified at the deaths of these young men. Reports of alleged institutional homophobia in the Metropolitan police must be taken seriously, so can my right hon. Friend reassure the gay community of London that he will support every effort to root it out?
Kit Malthouse
I certainly can give that reassurance, and we will stand four-square with the commissioner herself as she seeks to do exactly that. The Met have not stood still in seeking to address this issue. I understand that they have a new LGBTQ organisational improvement group, and that there is a network of 125 volunteer advisers across the whole of the Met. Officers who are posted to particular boroughs or areas are now being trained and briefed much more coherently about the nature of the community with whom they are dealing, including LGBTQ members of that community. They are making big strides. Nevertheless, there will be lessons to be learned, particularly from Louise Casey’s review, and we look forward to seeing its conclusions.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
My constituent Sarah Sak, Anthony’s mother, was on holiday in Turkey when the Metropolitan police contacted her to say that her son had been found dead. From that very second, when speaking to me, Sarah has accused the Met of prejudice and throughout all these proceedings she has constantly made the point that there was discrimination. Sadly, the coroner chose not to look at that. I make no criticism of the coroner, but when I spoke to Sarah last night, she asked me, “What can the Home Secretary do to persuade me that this can never, ever happen again?”
Kit Malthouse
Of course I offer my profound condolences to Sarah. As a father myself, I cannot imagine ever having to go through that kind of experience: it must have been terrible. I am aware, in particular, that there were failings in the posture of the family liaison officers who dealt with some of the bereaved, and that is also being addressed by the Metropolitan police.
Those who know Baroness Casey will know that she will be unrelenting and forensic in her examination of the culture of the Metropolitan police. I have confidence in her to do a good job in examining the overall culture in the Met, and an examination of this issue will be part of that. Once she has concluded her examination, we shall be able to draw some lessons about the future.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
There is always a danger that an entire institution will be damaged by the failures of a few. However, what action will be taken against officers who are found guilty of such an abysmal failure of investigation and drive? If action is not taken, does that not create a narrative that there is something wrong with the institution as a whole?
Kit Malthouse
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that people need to have confidence not just in the force as a whole but in individual officers. He may know that 17 officers were originally investigated by the IOPC. That investigation concluded some time ago, but I understand the IOPC is considering whether to reopen it, in full or in part, in the light of the evidence from the inquest.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
My Vauxhall constituency is home to one of the largest LGBT communities in the country, and I share my constituents’ feelings about the Met’s response to these horrific murders. How can my LGBT constituents trust the Met when they failed to link the three deaths that were so close together? How can my LGBT constituents trust the Met when they refused to rule out some of the horrific homophobic presumptions about these young gay men? How can my LGBT constituents trust the Met when, 12 months after the first murders, they ignored the pleas from family members, friends and partners?
The Minister says he is reassured by the Met but, respectfully, I do not think my constituents are reassured this afternoon. As with some of my black and minority ethnic constituents and some of my female constituents, my constituents and communities seem to have experienced a catalogue of failures from the Met police. Will he please show the leadership that he says is needed and call for a full public investigation to get to the bottom of this?
Kit Malthouse
I understand the hon. Lady’s anger and frustration, which many of us feel. However, as I said, I am reassured that the Met are taking the three steps required to learn the lessons of this issue. First, they acknowledge that something went wrong and have apologised. Secondly, they are being transparent about that and about what needs to change. And thirdly, they are seeking independent advice on their internal processes and internal culture to make sure change happens and sticks. Although I can understand the doubts that many in the LGBTQ+ community may have about the Metropolitan police today, I hope this means that, over the months and years to come, the Met can rebuild the trust that is needed.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The long-term partner of one of the murder victims was not allowed by the police to read the forged suicide note, which was of course written by the murderer, because he was not considered to be next of kin. We left that most appalling attitude behind in the 1980s. Given this is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) says, the latest in a catalogue of abysmal failures by the Metropolitan police that indicates a rotten culture at the Met’s heart, why did the Home Secretary recently extend the commissioner’s tenure by two years?
Kit Malthouse
Obviously the Home Secretary, along with the Mayor of London, felt the current commissioner is the right person to do the job for the next two years. Of course these awful events happened when she was not in the employ of the Metropolitan police. However, the right hon. Gentleman makes a strong point about the culture of the Metropolitan police, and importantly that is something the leadership has acknowledged, hence the appointment of Dame Louise Casey.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
An Ipsos MORI poll suggests that trust in the police has fallen from 76% to 63%, especially among marginalised groups and the LGBTQ+ community. Will the Minister agree to the Liberal Democrat call for mandatory, UK-wide awareness training for the police on prejudice and unconscious bias?
Kit Malthouse
The police have extensive training on many of these issues. Although I acknowledge that trust and confidence in the police have taken a battering over the past few months, it is worth remembering that the people who are most profoundly upset by this are the thousands of police officers, of all types, across the country who want their profession and vocation to be held in high esteem by the people they serve, not least because that was the primary motivation for their joining.
The police service in this country is changing very significantly, not least because, as the hon. Lady will know, we are recruiting a new generation of police officers who will massively expand capacity and bring a new mindset into the organisation. This presents an enormous opportunity to diversify the police and to see the kind of cultural shift that, to be fair, has been ongoing for the past 20 years.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Something as appalling as this deserves more than to be tacked on to an existing inquiry. It surely requires a public inquiry, as other colleagues have called for, to look at the totality and horror of this event.
The Minister mentioned the idea of specialist officers within the force. I understand the need for them and can see some value in the idea, but is there not a greater problem in the general attitudes throughout the force? The danger of having specialist officers is that things get shoved on to them and ignored by everybody else. What we need is a change of culture as a whole right across the Metropolitan police force.
Kit Malthouse
Obviously there is a strong role for specialist officers in particular aspects of investigation or in investigations that have particular characteristics. The key thing is that those officers work hand in glove with other officers, particularly those based in a borough, who very often are able to piece together the investigation in a way that a specialist officer is not. One of the improvements the Metropolitan police are putting in place is better training for frontline response officers to make sure that they are able to follow an investigation from start to finish, basically, much more and that only the most serious of crimes are handed off to the specialists, in a way that is co-ordinated. Therefore, the chain in intelligence and the appreciation of the full picture, if you like, of what has happened in a related set of offences will not be lost to the organisation.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
It has been a terribly sad few days. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said, we did not expect in this day and age for a partner of a gay man to be treated in this way. Although progress has been made, it can still be extremely difficult for members of the LGBT+ community to speak confidently about partners or relationships. What protocols has the Minister put in place since these tragic events, not just in the Met but across all police forces, to ensure that friends, partners and families of those in the LGBT community are treated effectively and sensitively in any form of investigation? What will he do to ensure that those protocols are implemented effectively, and are not just a piece of paper?
Kit Malthouse
As I hope the hon. Lady knows, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is currently in the other place and is due to return to us in the new year, will place in law the provision of a police covenant, one of the key themes of which is family support and welfare. As part of our engagement to build that picture, I was very pleased to participate with a number of groups on different aspects of policing. As I say, there is a great tapestry these days; there is not just a monoculture in British policing. I spoke to those who are in an LGBT+ relationship, a key group, to understand the particular relationship they have with policing and the particular support they may need for the future. I hope that, as the covenant lands, we will be able to flesh out more widely what that support looks like, and that she will be able to support us in doing so.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The response from the Government smacks of the same old, same old response of shutting down shop when the police are criticised in this way. The IOPC investigated 17 officers involved in the investigation and only two were disciplined, despite the scale of the failures in the investigation. Now we hear that the IOPC has been invited back to have another go. That really is not good enough. What is needed is a fully independent inquiry. It is time the Government recognised that that is the only response that is acceptable.
Kit Malthouse
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration, but I am sure he will understand that it is extremely important that the IOPC relies on the “I” and that it is the Independent Office for Police Conduct. It therefore cannot be ordered by Ministers or anyone else to investigate or not investigate. I am given to understand that in this case, in the light of the evidence that has come through, it is considering whether to reopen the investigation. It would not be proper for me to influence its decision either way, in the same way that it is not for me to order the police to investigate any individual or otherwise. We should wait and see what the IOPC has to say and wait for the other inquiries commissioned by City Hall and by the Met, and see what the picture looks like after that.
Kit Malthouse
Just to finish, Mr Speaker, the Government take this incident extremely seriously and we want to do everything we can to make sure that it does not happen again.
Mr Speaker
That seems to have been aimed at me, but I just say that I granted an urgent question because there was no statement.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
And well done you, Mr Speaker.
The Minister has said repeatedly that he has reassured himself, but he has not reassured me—if anything, quite the opposite. He keeps referring to this as a “tragedy”, but it is not a tragedy; it is a double-layered gay hate crime. I wish he would actually use those words. It has been a double-layered gay hate crime. First there were the original murders, and then there was the refusal to investigate them, which in itself is a gay hate crime. It is about time we took this seriously, not least because homophobic hate crimes in the past three years have risen to 1,833 a month. That is why a lot of gay men in this country are beginning to feel frightened. The Government have got to do something. Get on with it!
Kit Malthouse
First of all, my apologies, Mr Speaker. I was not aiming any particular comment at you. It is just that the microphone went off as I was finishing.
I acknowledge the terrible nature of this crime, and I acknowledge the prejudiced, homophobic nature of it—[Interruption.] Yes, I do; of course I do. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are doing enormous amounts of work on violence and murder in all their forms across the whole country. We have set murder specifically—irrespective of the nature of the murder—as one of our national priorities to push it down. Obviously this murder is particularly heinous and unpleasant, not least because of the botched investigation that took place around it. What I am saying to Opposition Members is that we are determined to help the police to learn the lessons from this. We will do what we can to help them to do so, and we will push them to do so. At the moment, we do not believe that a full public inquiry is the way to do that, not least because of the time required, but there are some extremely useful and assertive investigations ongoing, independently, around this case that give us cause to believe that there will be change in the future. If there is not, we can come back to it, but I honestly hope that nobody is implying that either I or the Government do not take these kinds of crimes extremely seriously. We absolutely do. Every single murder that happens in this country, no matter the complexion or the demographic of the victim, is of extreme importance to us and to me personally.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Homophobia is a lived reality for thousands of gay people up and down the country every single day. These avoidable murders of gay young men will be broadcast around the country, and LGBT people will be looking at the Minister’s response and saying, “They do not value my life because I am gay.” A full public independent inquiry will give LGBT people the reassurance that something will be done to stop this ever happening again. Will the Minister reconsider his refusal to have that independent inquiry?
Kit Malthouse
I have to confess that I object to this characterisation that I do not care or that we do not care about these individuals. It is completely unfair and completely untrue, not least to those members of the Government who happen to be of that description themselves—[Interruption.] No, many of us have worked on these issues addressing all sorts of communities, whether it is domestic murders or murders in minority communities. The murders of all sorts of people are profoundly important to us. That is why we have set murder as a national priority. If it is of interest to the House, last week I got the police chiefs of the seven biggest contributors to the murder total in this country around a table to talk about how we can further drive murders of all types down. This is a particularly unpleasant murder—[Interruption.] I understand the alarm and distress it will have caused across the country. We need to learn the lessons from it and we are determined to do so.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Minister’s response to the urgent question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), which should have been a statement from the Home Secretary, is extremely disappointing. I have dealt with the Met for more than 30 years, as a lawyer and as a politician, and I can remember few cases as serious as this, both because of the callous incompetence of the investigation and because of the consequences in the loss of lives of those young men.
All I have heard from the Minister today, and from the senior members of the Met—London MPs are just about to go to talk to them—are platitudes. I have heard platitudes specifically because they will not address the homophobic nature of these murders. That is not being addressed because it will not be included in the inquiry, and the Minister will not establish a full inquiry. He needs to order that now. A BBC series on this issue is starting on 3 January; it is not going to go away. He is entitled to his view that the Met is not institutionally homophobic—I would take a different view—but he is not entitled not to investigate that and to sweep this issue under the carpet.
Kit Malthouse
First, it is not the case that this matter is not being investigated further. As I have outlined several times, a number of lines of inquiry are being pursued, both about the Met’s investigation generally and its culture more specifically, and the IOPC may or may not reopen the investigation into the officers. So it is not the case that this has reached some kind of dead end, as some Opposition Members seem to be implying. It is simply not true to say that we are not bending every sinew to try to identify those who are likely to murder, in all different circumstances, whether domestic or through drugs—whatever the circumstances are. As I say, just last week I sat the seven biggest forces down and we had a three-hour session to look at what more work we could do to identify those who are likely to go on to commit such crimes: what their precursor behaviour is; what indications there are in their background; what data pools we could put together, whether that is their background offending or intelligence about them, that would give us clues towards what they were likely to do and allow us to intervene before. That enormous project of work has been under way for two years, and I hope and believe it will drive down murder numbers in the next few years to come. It is very unfair to accuse us of not taking these murders extremely seriously—that is exactly what we are doing and we are determined to make sure that they do not happen again.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
We have seen the Daniel Morgan, Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman cases, the Sarah Everard case and then the resulting vigil, the fiasco at Wembley and now this shocking set of gay murders—the Minister has not said that word.
Dr Huq
I do not think the Minister has said it. In any case, the list of bunglings under this Metropolitan Police Commissioner this year alone seems endless, and they date back to 2005, with the shoot-to-kill Jean Charles de Menezes operation. May I ask that as well as the inspection that the Minister mentions, he undertakes a full statutory inquiry, with teeth, into the entire Met police and, although it may sound unsisterly to say so, its leadership? That should be a priority for whoever steps into the shoes of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) as Chair of the Committee on Wednesday.
Kit Malthouse
For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that these were very obviously horrific gay murders, targeted against men because they were gay and driven by who knows what—homophobia or some kind of depraved sexual practice; I do not know. Some monster perpetrated these awful acts against these poor gay men. I am happy to say, without reservation, that obviously they need to be investigated and we need to get to the bottom of this. As I have explained, there are inquiries ongoing into the culture of the Metropolitan police, and I would like to see how they land before we seek to duplicate them by some other means.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
We should not, ever, underestimate the very real concerns of the LGBTQ+ communities across this country about these dreadful failings by the Met police. Is the Minister satisfied that police forces across the country, not just the Met, have sufficient time, resources and leadership to ensure that the complete breakdown of oversight described by the jury in this hearing cannot ever happen again?
Kit Malthouse
As I said, much of my work over the past two years has been devoted to bringing the focus of the whole of UK policing and, in particular, its leadership on to murder as a specific issue. That means improving processes, improving forensics, improving their investigation techniques and improving their prior identification. Crucially, it means improving the leadership, and that is what I was doing last Thursday with the police chiefs from across the country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response to the questions. Having read some of the details of this case in the news recently, I was, like others in this Chamber, very shocked. I am anxious to understand why normal procedures do not seem to have been followed. Can the Minister affirm that, in every case, regardless of the crime and the motivation, the inquiry and the evidence procedure is the same, and that there are no levels of importance in the allocation of cases in any of our police forces in the United Kingdom?
Kit Malthouse
That is definitely the consistency that we seek, but there is a category of deaths that have thus far needed some focus, which is unexplained deaths. For example, the circumstances of this case are that these deaths were originally classified as unexplained or non-suspicious. Since then, I understand that the Metropolitan police have put in a step-by-step guide for officers to make sure that, in contemplating these deaths, no stone goes unturned in trying to connect them, and that they are forensic and curious about whether they could be linked. In the very obvious way that many of us have read about in the papers, these murders were in fact linked, whether by geography or by causation. I hope that that will improve the investigation of the cases and that we will see that consistency that the hon. Gentleman seeks across the whole country.
Covid-19 Update
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, I want to put on record my disappointment that the Prime Minister is not here to make this statement. Last night, in fairness to the Secretary of State, he phoned me to say that the Prime Minister felt the need to make the announcement to the country yesterday. I am surprised, though, that he did not therefore think it appropriate to come to this House to answer questions on the important announcement today. I have respect for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, but I am really, really disappointed that, once again, this House has come second to TV news. It is not acceptable. If this is the game that we are going to play, we are going to have to play hardball.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on covid-19.
Since the UK became the first country to approve a vaccine against covid-19, almost exactly a year ago, we have been locked in a race between the virus and the vaccine. The success of our national vaccination programme has moved us ahead in that race, but now, with the new omicron variant, we have to work even harder to stay ahead.
Since last week, we have learned two things about this variant. The first is that no variant of covid-19 has spread this fast. There are now 4,713 confirmed cases of omicron in the UK. The UK Health Security Agency estimates that the current number of daily infections are around 200,000. While omicron represents more than 20% of cases in England, we have already seen it rise to over 44% in London, and we expect it to become the dominant covid-19 variant in the capital in the next 48 hours.
There are currently 10 confirmed people in England who have been hospitalised with omicron. It is vital that we remember that hospitalisations and deaths lag infections by around two weeks, so we can expect those numbers to increase dramatically in the days and weeks ahead. In preparation, the UK’s four chief medical officers raised the covid alert level to 4—its second highest level—over the weekend. NHS England has just announced that it will return to its highest level of emergency preparedness—level 4 national incident. This means that the NHS response to omicron will be co-ordinated as a national effort rather than led by individual trusts.
The second thing we have learned in the past week is that two jabs are not enough to prevent symptomatic infection from omicron, but a third dose—a booster dose—provides strong protection, with analysis by the UK Health Security Agency showing a third dose is 70% effective at preventing symptomatic infection. We expect the booster to take effect more quickly than the second dose. We are already running the most successful booster campaign in Europe. More than four in 10 UK adults have now received a third dose or booster and Saturday was a record, with more than half a million boosters given across the UK.
However, with the race between the virus and the vaccine so close, we must move faster. Two weeks ago, we announced that we would offer every eligible adult a booster by the end of January. In response to the omicron emergency—and as the Prime Minister announced yesterday evening—we are bringing that target forward by a month and launching the omicron emergency boost. We have opened the booster programme to every adult who has had a second dose of the vaccine at least three months ago to offer them the chance of getting their booster before the new year. From this morning, anyone over 18 can walk into a vaccination centre and, from Wednesday, they can book online via the NHS website. The UK Government will also provide whatever support is needed to accelerate vaccinations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have the jabs. The challenge now is to get them into arms.
To meet our ambitious target, the NHS will need to deliver a record number of jabs. Until now, the highest number of jabs we have delivered in a single day in the UK was more than 840,000. We will not only need to match that, but beat it every day. We can, and we have a plan to try and do it. We are opening more vaccination sites—including pop-up and mobile sites—and they will be working seven days a week. We are training thousands more volunteer vaccinators. We are asking GPs and pharmacies to do more, and we are drafting in 42 military planning teams across every region of our country.
This collective national mission will only succeed if we all play our part. Those who have not had their booster should find their local walk-in vaccination centre or book an appointment on the NHS website from Wednesday. Those who have had their booster jab should encourage their friends and family to do the same. Those who have or have recently had covid should wait 28 days from their positive result to get their booster.
To those who have not yet had their vaccine at all, I would like to say this: whatever has held you back in the past, please think again, and book your jab as quickly as possible. By acting together to get boosted now we can protect ourselves against omicron this winter.
I acknowledge that our national mission comes with some difficult trade-offs. We are redeploying NHS staff away from non-urgent services. That means that, for the next two weeks, all primary care services will focus on urgent clinical need and vaccines, and some non-urgent appointments and elective surgeries may be postponed until the new year while we prioritise getting people the booster. These are steps that no Health Secretary would wish to take unless they were absolutely necessary, but I am convinced that if we do not prioritise the booster now, the health consequences will be far more grave in the months that lie ahead.
Our omicron emergency boost is a major step, but I am not going to pretend that this alone will be enough to see us through the difficult weeks ahead. Because of the threat of omicron, we are moving to plan B in England, subject to the will of this House. That means that: we must use face coverings in indoor public places; people should work from home if they can; and, from Wednesday—again subject to this House’s approval—people will need to show a negative lateral flow test to get into nightclubs and large events, with an exemption for the double-vaccinated. Once all adults have had a reasonable chance to get their booster jab, we intend to change that exemption to require a booster dose.
Even with plan B, we still have far fewer restrictions in place than Europe. I can also confirm that from tomorrow, fully vaccinated contacts of a covid-19 case will now be able to take daily lateral flow tests instead of self-isolating. This is a vital way to minimise the disruption to people’s daily lives and to avoid a so-called pingdemic. I can assure this House that the UK has sufficient lateral flow tests to see us through the coming weeks. If anyone finds that they are unable to get a kit online, they should check the website the following day or they can pop down to their local pharmacy and pick up a kit. From today, I can confirm that the NHS covid pass is being rolled out to 12 to 15-year-olds for international travel, allowing even more people to be able to prove their vaccine status for travel where it is needed. [Hon. Members: “When?”] From today. Taken together, these are proportionate and balanced steps keeping the country moving while slowing the spread of omicron and buying us more time to get more boosters into arms.
We are also taking steps to keep people safe in adult social care. We know that, sadly, people in care homes and those who receive domiciliary care are more likely to suffer serious health consequences if they get covid-19, so we are expanding our specialist vaccination teams to get more boosters to the vulnerable and those providing care. But even as we do so, we must go further to protect colleagues and residents from omicron. So we are increasing the frequency of staff testing and, with a heavy heart, we must restrict every resident to just three nominated visitors, not including their essential care giver. This is a difficult step, and I understand that it comes with an impact on physical and mental wellbeing, but we know from previous waves that it is one of the most effective things that we can do to protect vulnerable residents. We are also increasing our workforce recruitment and retention fund with £300 million of new money. This is in addition to the £162.5 million we announced in October. The funds will help to pay bonuses, bring forward pay rises for care staff, fund overtime, and increase workforce numbers over the winter.
I know that hon. Members had hoped that the days of this kind of covid-19 update were behind us. After our successful reopening in the summer, it is not an update that I wanted to deliver. But the renewed threat of omicron means that we have more work to do to stay ahead of this virus. We can, if we all play our part, and boosters are the key. We have achieved so many phenomenal things over the last two years. I know we are weary, but it is on all of us to pick up, to step up and do some phenomenal work once again to play our part and to get boosted now. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
Can I suggest to the Secretary of State that we could be a pop-up site for all the staff that work here to get them boosted?
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
Today we learned of the first death in the UK as a result of the omicron virus, so on behalf of the whole House I send our condolences to the friends and family of that person who has lost their life. Their death puts this statement and the task at hand in context. It is a stark reminder that the pandemic is not over, that the new variant is a clear and serious risk to our public health, and of the urgency of getting Britain boosted and protecting us against this threat.
The Labour party will always act in the best interests of our NHS, our public health, and our nation. Having repeatedly called for the booster programme to be ramped up, we will give our full support to this effort. Labour Members will make every effort to get the message out that vaccines are the best tool we have at our disposal to protect ourselves, those closest to us, and our NHS. The target of getting 1 million people a day their booster vaccine is unprecedented and may even prove impossible, but we applaud the ambition. If anyone can do it, the NHS can, and the whole country will be willing them on and will not knock them for trying.
What people will not accept is the Government moving the goalposts. The Prime Minister is now famous for over-promising and under-delivering. In his televised address last night, he said that people
“will have the chance to get their booster before the new year.”
But, as we heard from the Secretary of State, the aim is instead to “offer” the booster to every adult by the end of the month, meaning that the delivery will wait until January or even February. Are the Government rowing back on the target set yesterday? If so, why has it changed overnight? What hope do we have of achieving the necessary level of booster jabs if the public and those delivering the vaccines are told one thing one day and another the next day? The Prime Minister has got to learn to be straight with people, because he is undermining public trust and confidence in the Government and in public health measures at a critical time. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with local authorities, GPs, pharmacies and other delivery partners who will be crucial to that effort?
Then there is the shambles of testing. I thought the Secretary of State might be living on a different planet when he described the availability of testing, because the Government’s website states today that home testing kits are unavailable, pharmacies across the country are out of stock and, even here in Parliament, no home testing kits are available from Portcullis House. No doubt, that is due to a surge in demand ahead of the new testing requirements this week, but surely that should have been foreseen. This is a serious problem. Those coming into contact with positive omicron cases will not be able to follow the rules and get themselves tested daily, those who require tests to undertake home visits risk being left short, and many others need them for work. How does the Secretary of State plan to ensure that enough tests are in stock and available for everyone who needs them, when they need them? When will the problem be resolved? It does not appear that he was even aware of it.
Absent from the Prime Minister’s address last night was any plan to speed up the vaccine roll-out for 12 to 15-year-olds. On current trends, some teenagers will not receive their vaccine until February, five months after the Government’s initial target of October half-term. Children have already faced significant disruption to their education, so will the Secretary of State update the House on the vaccine roll-out for 12 to 15-year-olds? Will they receive their vaccines by the end of the Christmas holidays, as Labour has called for?
Of course, patients will be concerned by the news that appointments will be delayed to accommodate the booster roll-out. There is no doubt that the booster programme is the right priority. If we do not get ahead of omicron, the pressure on the NHS will be unbearable and the disruption to people’s appointments in the new year will be severe. But, let us be honest: the challenge is made so much greater as a direct result of the Government’s mismanagement of the NHS for 11 years. We went into the pandemic with record waiting lists and with six-figure staff shortages in the health service and the care sector. Where is the NHS workforce plan? Where is the plan for the recovery of elective care? Why can the Government not understand that their continued failure to fix social care is piling even more pressure on the NHS at the worst possible time? On social care visits, I ask the Secretary of State to think again about limits on care home visits. That feels like the wrong decision at the wrong time.
Mr Speaker, I will conclude, if I may, with some words directed to the public. We on the Labour Benches realise that the Prime Minister has tested patience by asking people to follow the rules when No. 10 did not. The Prime Minister’s actions in recent weeks have under-mined trust at a critical moment. I say to people feeling let down or lied to that I trust the chief medical officer, I trust the chief scientific adviser and I trust the NHS. The Prime Minister might not lead by example, but the rest of us can, and we—the Labour party—trust you, the British people, to do the right thing to protect yourselves, to protect the ones you love and to protect the NHS.
Sajid Javid
First, may I say that I heard your request, Mr Speaker? I am happy to take that up with you directly, if that is okay. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support of the need to accelerate the booster programme. I join him, as I am sure the whole House does, in expressing condolences for the individual who was the first in this country to die with the new variant.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. First, he asked about testing capacity. I would like to share more information with the House. There is no shortage of tests held by UKHSA—tens of millions of tests are in stock and millions are arriving each week. The limiting factor, because of the hugely increased demand—I am sure hon. Members understand why demand has suddenly surged—is the ability to deliver tests. The current arrangements with Royal Mail alone are not enough, but new arrangements have been reached with Amazon and other delivery methods. There will still be many hundreds of thousands—record numbers—delivered each day, but also the number of access points is being increased, including many more through pharmacies, and we are rapidly looking at other access points. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this, but I hope he and others understand that there has been a huge surge and increase, and this is not just about the number of tests available but getting them through and delivered; both are equally important.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the booster programme timing. He is right that just a couple of weeks ago the plan was to give everyone a booster before the end of January. That was after the change in advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation that the dosing gap should be reduced to three months and that it should now include everyone over 18. For the reasons I have explained and that the Prime Minister shared in his national broadcast yesterday, we want to bring that forward. That involves working hard with the NHS, which has done phenomenal work already to reach four in 10 adults with boosters and in the vaccination programme in general.
This is asking a huge amount of our colleagues in the NHS, and it is our joint view that we can try to offer adults a chance to get boosted by the end of this month. That does not mean every single person can necessarily get that booster; it requires them to come forward and take up the offer as well as everything going right in this huge expansion plan. But again, I hope the hon. Gentleman can respect that the NHS is doing everything it can, with the full support of every Department of Government, and is throwing everything at this to offer as many opportunities as it can and the maximum possible capacity for delivering on that commitment.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the challenges facing the NHS. I remind him and the House that this year the Government have put an extra £34 billion into the NHS and social care, £5.4 billion of that in the second half of this year, and over the next three years there is a commitment to at least £8 billion extra going into the largest catch-up fund the NHS has ever seen. In the last year almost 10,000 nurses and almost 3,000 doctors have joined the NHS; the NHS is increasing workforce and capacity, is looking at new ways to do electives, and is putting a huge amount of effort into its electives programme and its non-covid work as well.
Finally, I do understand what the hon. Gentleman said on adult social care and the limit on visitors, and it is important to get the balance right. We all know the problems and the sad deaths not long ago in care homes with this pandemic, and it is right to take balanced measures to protect people in care homes. We are working with, and listening to, those who run care homes and trying to take a balanced approach that allows visits to take place but also protects vulnerable people.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
One year and five days ago the UK administered the first properly approved covid vaccine in the world, and the Government are absolutely right to focus on immunisation, but Israel approved booster jabs for all adults in September, France approved jabs for teenagers in June, both long before us, and the United States has already approved jabs for five-year-olds, again long before us. Is the Secretary of State worried that our regulators, having been the nimblest in the world, are now taking too long? They are brilliant scientists and they are rightly totally independent, but what can he do to speed up this crucial decision making in a pandemic?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend makes an important point, from experience. We can be proud of so much of what our regulators have achieved and done. As he said, we were the first in the world to approve a covid-19 vaccine, but he is right to challenge on this and ask what more can be done, especially in light of the circumstances we face. The JCVI is not a regulator but it is an important part of the approvals process, and I hope he will also commend its swift response since the emergence of omicron in changing the rules around boosters.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is worth putting on record that Scotland is the most vaccinated nation in the UK, and I certainly encourage everybody to continue to take up the booster. Does the Secretary of State share my outrage that last week his Back Benchers were literally cheering the proposition that he needs to wait until more people are hospitalised before they will countenance the wearing of masks in public places? That is absolutely reckless, and it sends the wrong message to the public when we are trying to tell them to take the risk of omicron seriously.
Tragically, we know that people are now being hospitalised and, sadly, we have already recorded one death from omicron. Based on evidence elsewhere, what kind of upward trajectory does the Secretary of State think there will be in hospitalisations? Why in the plan B measures being brought forward—all already in place in Scotland—is there a pub exemption? That makes no sense.
Given that LFTs are only 50% accurate, what risk implications has the Secretary of State assessed in using the LFTs to keep people from self-isolating? Surely he needs to consider the minimum being a PCR test, following the more cautious approach adopted by the Scottish Government. Why, with LFTs as their key guidance, have the Government put themselves in this ridiculous position of the website saying it has run out of LFT kits?
If we are talking about supporting people to self-isolate, we need to revisit and extend the levels of statutory sick pay. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about that? Critically, does he support calls from the devolved nations that they need Treasury support to put in place what restrictions they believe are required to control the spread and impact of omicron and support livelihoods at the same time?
The Scottish Government have already put in place more generous rates relief for hospitality venues than the UK Government did but, with trade dropping, suppliers and the trade itself need further support, especially if further restrictions are required. Will the Secretary of State take that up with the Chancellor? Is the Cabinet considering support for the travel industry? Does he agree that targeted sector restrictions, with full financial support, is a better long-term strategy than the “all or nothing” approach we seem to be taking, and praying that the booster programme alone will be sufficient? It will need a lot more work than just that alone.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the lag between the point of infection and hospitalisation. That emphasises the need to act early and strongly. That is why the booster programme and that response is so important in Scotland, in England and throughout the UK, and it is good that all four nations are working closely together on it.
On lateral flow tests as an alternative to self-isolation, I think they are the right approach. They can be taken daily, so the individual is tested each day for seven days, whereas a PCR would be a single test at a single moment. This is much more flexible and it is based on advice Ministers have received. On the hon. Gentleman’s questions on economic support, that is something we keep under review.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I congratulate the Government on the roll-out of the vaccination programme—it is impressive—but what does my right hon. Friend say to my constituent who says she is now less afraid of covid than she is of intrusive and incoherent Government regulations?
Sajid Javid
I would say to my right hon. Friend that I hope her constituent would appreciate that the Government have to act on the information they see before them on the rate of spread of this new variant and what we now know about its degree of vaccine escape—not just to protect my right hon. Friend’s constituent, but to protect that constituent’s loved ones and her community.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I say to the Secretary of State that I was deeply shocked, when he was in this House recently and I said that all sensible Members of Parliament will be supporting any measure to save lives, to hear boos and catcalls from the Government Benches? I will repeat my view: does he realise what great potential we have as Members of Parliament in our communities, working for this, rolling our sleeves up, working cross-party with local councillors and volunteers? This House of Commons is a real resource. Please, please will he use us effectively?
Sajid Javid
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his call for all hon. Members to do their bit to help the nation in this time of crisis. It is not just about what we can all do in this House; I am sure he agrees that it is about what we can do in our local communities.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
My right hon. Friend rightly talked about protecting the NHS. Can I ask him to ensure that we protect our children as well and that the Government set out a plan to keep schools open in January? Given that The Sunday Times suggested that primary school children will be vaccinated, will he or the Secretary of State for Education make a statement about the vaccination programme for younger children and ensure that there is 100% parental consent?
Sajid Javid
I agree with my right hon. Friend on the importance of protecting our children. We in this House all know how children have suffered throughout the pandemic and the impact on their education, mental health and socialisation with other children. He is right to talk about that importance. One reason to take the measures that we have set out, especially around expanding the booster programme, is the ensure that we prioritise children. On the issue of vaccinations for younger children aged five to 11, the JCVI is considering that. When the Government hear back from the JCVI on that, we will bring it to the House.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Having listened to it and having studied the matter in some detail over the weekend, I will be supporting the Government and the measures that they are introducing tomorrow night. What would he say to those in the community who are saying, “If the rule makers can’t be trusted to obey their own rules, why should we?”
Sajid Javid
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. It is important to emphasise that the rules that we are discussing—all rules of any type, really, but he is talking about those around the pandemic—are there for all of us and apply equally to all of us.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
GPs, particularly in rural areas, are finding it difficult and challenging to deliver the booster programme, but will have to deliver the booster in great numbers. Can the Secretary of State look at measures that will speed up the flow for those GP surgeries? Will he send a message to all patients that they will need to be understanding in the next couple of weeks to ensure that the morale of our GPs, who work so hard, is not undermined?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to talk about how hard GPs have worked throughout the pandemic, and about the need to provide greater support. We expect and need them to help with this big new vaccination effort. There are already signs of many people showing that they understand the need for GPs to reprioritise over the next couple of weeks, which is important too.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
It is clear from the Secretary of State’s statement that he is a considerable improvement on his predecessor, so I am sure that he accepts that covid is now endemic and variants will probably emerge for years, if not decades. In that case, surely by now, instead of the erratic response that we have seen, we should have a well-prepared plan of action and chain of command ready to be activated as soon as a new variant is detected, as well as enough supplies and trained personnel to operate it. Why does his Department seem to be continually surprised by the arrival of variants so that, instead of a smooth-running plan, we have chaos and panic?
Sajid Javid
Well, there will be variants of covid-19 for many years, as the right hon. Gentleman says—indeed, there have been many hundreds of variants. No country in the world is better at the surveillance of those variants; I remind him that the UK alerted the world to the threat of omicron. No country is better prepared, if we look at how swiftly the UK reacted—for example, with international restrictions and the information that we shared with the world about vaccines. I think he understands those points, and I regret the way that he has framed the question.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Many of my constituents will be very surprised indeed to hear that, from this morning, anyone over 18 can walk into a vaccination centre. Will he give me an update on the Hampshire situation?
May I ask my right hon. Friend about the NHS covid pass being rolled out to 12 to 15-year-olds? That is such a welcome announcement; it is something the Secretary of State promised this House he would bring back, and I thank him for that. How exactly will it work? Many of my constituents will be travelling within the next few days, and certainly within the next week and over Christmas. How exactly will they be able to access this pass, given that they cannot access the NHS app in the same way that adults can?
Sajid Javid
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He is right that the covid pass is a very important measure. We will shortly publish on the website exactly how it will work, but it is being rolled out as a digital pass in the same way as it is working for adults, starting today.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister addressed the nation yesterday, but what he has not done is address the NHS in the same way. When I spoke at 4 o’clock to those in Derbyshire, they were unaware. They had had no system letter from the Department of Health about prioritisation of vaccines. They were unaware of whether the quality outcomes framework payments were suspended. And they were unaware that their winter access fund obligations had now been suspended. Will the Secretary of State make sure that all our health care providers are informed about these crucial matters, which actually give reality to the delivery of his really important messages on funding and priorities for the national health service?
Sajid Javid
Yes. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a very fast-moving situation. The NHS made the final decision to go on the expansion—this expansion of the booster programme that I referred to earlier—yesterday, and the system letter has gone out today.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
First, I say to my right hon. Friend that it is welcome he has come here today, but I am a bit concerned about the mixed and heavy messaging coming from the Government, the unintended consequences of which can be dire. I notice, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), the Chairman of the Education Committee, that the Centre for Social Justice has produced a report about the huge damage done to young children, particularly in the poorest communities, when schools start locking down and shutting them out. Will the Secretary of State please ensure that the message is clear to schools that they are not to lock down?
Secondly, when I spoke this morning to GPs in my constituency, I asked them, “What is the one thing that you would like the Secretary of State to do now if you’ve got to get all these people through?” They said, “Do we really need to have the 15-minute wait? Can we end that? We would triple our way through this, and you would get it going straight away?” Will the Secretary of State please act on that now?
Sajid Javid
First, I very much agree with my right hon. Friend on the importance of never losing sight of potential unintended consequences. He points to an excellent report by the Centre for Social Justice, which looked at this in the light of past actions. That is certainly not lost on me or my colleagues in Government, but he is right to highlight that to the House once again. I hope he agrees, however, with the messages we have set out so far. They are measured and they are proportionate. The focus should be on the booster campaign because that is our way out of this. On the 15-minute wait, it is being very actively looked at, and I am sure that I will have something more to say on that very shortly.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says that there are millions of tests available, but only nine local authorities out of the 153 across England have access to a float stock of 500 PCR test kits to use at their discretion, using local knowledge, to tackle covid clusters before they become significant outbreaks. This is very important to disrupt outbreaks and slow transmission, but it is not available outside those nine pilot local authorities. Given the importance of slowing transmission of the omicron variant, will the Secretary of State agree to authorise the same float stock of 500 PCR test kits to every director of public health and every area, to give them the tools they need to fight this variant?
Sajid Javid
I was referring to lateral flow tests earlier, but I think the hon. Lady asked me about PCR tests. I will look into what she said.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Last week’s Ofsted report was damning about the impact lockdown has had on our nation’s children and the immense harm students have suffered, with the Children’s Commissioner saying that schools should not close again. However, it seems that the Government have left the door open to school closures after the Christmas recess. What specific conditions would need to be met for schools not to open in the new year?
Sajid Javid
I welcome that question from my right hon. Friend. What I would say to her is that with the risk we see from omicron at this point in time—the rise in infections, the increased risk of hospitalisation and the information we have on vaccines—we think we have taken the appropriate response. It is a balanced and measured response. It is designed to protect so much of what we love in our country, especially the interests of our children. The most important thing to focus on now is the booster programme.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
First of all, I encourage everybody to be vaccinated and to have the booster jab. I am delighted that the Secretary of State has moved away from passports to people having an LFT if they cannot show their covid pass. I thank Labour Front Benchers for the work they have done, too. The Secretary of State talks about the incredible work the NHS is doing and what it will do over the next few weeks, but will he pause his plans for mandatory vaccination of all NHS workers, have conversations with the trade unions and come up with a plan for it to be by consent, rather than mandatory?
Sajid Javid
First, I agree with the objection I think the hon. Lady had to vaccine passports as a requirement for people to be vaccinated to enter a high-risk venue. It is important that we focus on a test requirement with an exemption if one happens to have the right level of vaccination. On her question about mandatory NHS vaccination, however, I am afraid I have to tell her we will not pause what we have already announced, not least because—this is the view of the NHS leadership as well—omicron has made it even more urgent that we continue with it.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Four weeks ago, I raised the matter of a family member who is aged 90, completely bed-bound, vulnerable and at home, and had still had no booster jab. I was promised action, but nothing has happened and he is still waiting. I understand that there are potentially hundreds of thousands of very old, very vulnerable people trapped in their own home still waiting for a booster jab, with carers coming in and out all day, yet we are now offering booster jabs to 18-year-olds who have virtually no chance of falling seriously ill. This is an absurd situation caused by massive delays, bureaucracy and the ridiculous rule that a doctor has to come and a nurse has to wait 20 minutes with the old person, despite a minuscule risk of harm. We need action this day. These people are in danger of dying. Will the Secretary of State now act on behalf of very old people trapped in their own home?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this matter. Those who are in care homes or homebound have been prioritised. For example, I can tell him that I believe that, as of the end of November, 97% of care homes had been visited by GPs or other primary care teams to deliver vaccinations. In cases where they could visit, that was because the care home itself had a lockdown. They will all be revisited again and again. My right hon. Friend asks specifically about people who are homebound. The same approach is being taken. We will absolutely ensure that every single one of those people—as he rightly says, they are more vulnerable than others—get a visit and get their booster jab.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I had a busy weekend: on Saturday I got my booster jab from Margaret, a hard-working staff member from NHS Lanarkshire—I highly encourage everyone to get jabbed and boosted—and yesterday I met my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan), a hard-working and dedicated Member of this House. It is an utter shambles that she is unable to speak and vote, but she is doing a power of work in her constituency. She is an inspiration to us all.
Given the danger of this new variant, does the Secretary of State agree that the House should follow the lead of the Scottish Parliament and move to virtual proceedings, or at least hybrid proceedings, to protect vulnerable Members and their families and to set a positive example of working from home?
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that a couple of days ago the Department of Health and Social Care published something on social media that jumped the gun on the decision the House is being asked to take tomorrow. It is welcome that the Secretary of State intervened, saying:
“No law is decided until Parliament votes on it. I’ve asked for this graphic to be deleted”.
Of course that is not entirely true, because most covid laws, including the mask mandate, have come into force before Parliament voted on them.
This morning the Prime Minister refused three times to rule out further restrictions being imposed before Christmas. I will not ask the Secretary of State to contradict the Prime Minister, but if the Government do decide to announce further restrictions before Christmas, or indeed after Christmas, will he assure me from the Dispatch Box that this House will be recalled to debate and vote on the measures? It is not acceptable to keep governing this country by decree; the Government have to involve Members. I agree with what the Secretary of State said about using Members of Parliament; that means involving us in decisions and getting this House to make the laws. He will then find there is much more of a team approach, rather than decrees and late-night television addresses without taking the House seriously.
Sajid Javid
I am not aware of any plans for any further restrictions. As I told the House from this Dispatch Box last week, we are focused on the regulations that are coming before the House and will be subject to the will of the House. We will see if they are approved.
My right hon. Friend asked for an assurance, and I will take that back to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Eighteen weeks ago, on 9 August, I asked the Government what assessment they had made of using community pharmacies. The response, in full, said:
“No assessment has been made.”
Nine weeks ago, on 22 October, I asked the Government whether covid-secure transport would be available, so that the clinically extremely vulnerable could go for their booster jab appointments. The Government said they had made no assessment.
Six weeks ago, I asked the Government for guidance to the clinically extremely vulnerable. I asked them to sort out the confusion between third primary doses and booster jabs, and two weeks ago, on the same day that the British Medical Journal published data showing that omicron is more transmissible, I asked the Government whether they will renew contact-tracing funding for local authorities. A week later, they said they were still assessing it.
Will the Secretary of State apologise for the shocking levels of complacency in rolling out the booster programme over the past four months? And will he now apologise to all the patients who will have their treatment cancelled as a result of these new announcements?
Sajid Javid
No, I will not apologise for speeding up the booster programme to protect the health of the British public, and I will not apologise for asking the NHS to make it a priority. If the hon. Lady believes we should not be vaccinating people in this country, why does she not just say so?
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It has been suggested more than once that, when deaths with covid are announced each day, it should simultaneously be stated how many of them were of unvaccinated people or of people with underlying health conditions or other specific vulnerabilities. Will the Secretary of State now undertake to do that? Did he notice, as I and no doubt others did, that the Prime Minister said this morning that one person in the UK had died with omicron, but the shadow Secretary of State said the death was a result of the virus. Does the Secretary of State know which version is correct?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend is right to point to the distinction between, sadly, people who die with covid and those who die of covid. There is a difference. I have come to the Dispatch Box before to say, certainly with the delta variant—we do not have enough data on omicron yet for reasons that he will understand—that, as I am told by the NHS, approximately 20% of the people in hospital who have covid are there because they happen to have covid, rather than them being there because of covid.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Why are PCR tests so expensive in the UK? Why is the UK the second most expensive place in the world to have a PCR test? Why does the Government website still advertise PCR tests for £15 or £20 when they are not available anywhere in the UK for £15 or £20? Why are such PCR tests still being advertised given that, when someone goes through to the company concerned, the test ends up being £50, £60, £70, £80, £120 or £150? Is there not something that we can do to get the price of these tests down? A family going on holiday at Christmas or new year could end up spending £1,000 to £1,500 just on the tests.
Sajid Javid
The UKHSA has removed many so-called providers of PCR tests from the listing on the Government website. It has set a minimum price that must be met to try to avoid misleading prices. Unlike some other countries, we have not chosen to subsidise the cost of private PCR tests, because we have rightly concentrated our resources on the PCR tests that are available for people domestically if they have symptoms.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
The extended vaccine roll-out is welcome to prevent infection, but given that this puts even more pressure on resources, what steps have the Government taken in tandem to increase capacity in the NHS to address the increasing demand from both covid and non-covid patients? I know that the Army is being brought in, but what about Nightingale hospitals? Might they be reinstituted? Will we look again at the pension challenge, which stops senior people staying in the profession? Will we look at accelerating the training programmes for our health professionals, as other countries have? Will we create new health professionals with shorter training programmes? Action is needed now to deal with the capacity issue.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to talk about the importance of increasing capacity. The pandemic has brought that acutely to the front of our minds. There has been significant investment since the pandemic started, particularly in certain types of capacity, such as intensive care units, PPE and oxygen, as well as personnel, with some 10,000 nurses and 3,000 doctors added over the last year. As a result of the omicron emergency, we are revisiting the issue of how we can further increase the temporary capacity.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
NHS data in November showed that 98% of the pregnant women in hospital with covid were unvaccinated. Pregnant women want to do the right thing to protect themselves and their babies, but there has been a lack of clarity and a lack of prioritisation for vaccines for this group of people. Will the Secretary of State set out what the Government will do to send the message loud and clear that vaccination uptake for pregnant women and their babies is a priority for the Government?
Sajid Javid
It absolutely is. Work on this is being led by Lucy Chappell, in particular, in my Department and the UKHSA. One of the central focuses of her work has been to encourage more pregnant women to come forward and take up the offer of the vaccine. As the hon. Lady says, sadly, when we look at the data on pregnant women who are going into hospital because of covid infections, we see that almost all of them are unvaccinated.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the speed and efficiency with which he, the Government and the NHS are rolling out the booster programme. Does he share my concern that the roll-out of the programme is somewhat slower in Wales? There is no access to walk-in centres, no online booking system and the local health boards are depending on Royal Mail when the postal system is under the greatest pressure because of Christmas and because of staff off with covid. Will he agree to share the expertise and capacity that the UK Government have built up in the most positive way with the devolved Administrations—specifically with the Welsh Government —so that my constituents can receive the same access as his?
Sajid Javid
I very much agree: the omicron emergency is UK-wide and all parts of the UK should respond by increasing whatever they are doing on the booster programme further. I think that that view is shared throughout the UK. We will provide more support to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland to make sure that they can increase their booster programmes.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Testing and self-isolating are vital in preventing transmission, but for people in precarious jobs who are struggling to make ends meet, it can be incredibly worrying and difficult. Why have the Government still not fixed sick pay so that everyone is properly supported to do the right thing, including those who might be worried about getting their vaccination or booster due to possible side effects and the need to take time off work?
Sajid Javid
We of course keep under review the support that is available throughout the pandemic. It is important that the House decided to extend the availability of sick pay from day one. There is also a hardship fund that is administered by local authorities.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I commend the Health Secretary for bringing forward the boosters and aiming so high to get them out. One of the key things is to make sure that we have enough vaccinators and staff to do it, as well as volunteers. In that vein, will he ask the integrated care systems—all 42 of them—to review the bureaucracy they have around signing people up to give vaccinations, and potentially even to allow people from GP practices to work in hospitals and vice versa, because one of the practical issues over the past year has been that people have been turned away or have lost interest because of the paperwork around vaccinating. Given the challenge ahead, I would be grateful if he considered asking for that approach.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend speaks with great experience, and he is right to ask how the training programme for vaccinators, especially volunteer vaccinators, can be streamlined. That work is going on at urgent speed both within the NHS—within the ICSs—and in support of the fantastic work that St John Ambulance has been doing in this space.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I have asked the Secretary of State on numerous occasions about antibody testing for immunocompromised people. His answer has been about antivirals for when people get covid. Has he looked into giving immunocompromised people antibody tests so that we have a clear picture of who will need the antivirals quickly if they get covid?
Sajid Javid
My understanding is that antibody tests are available for the immunocompromised and the clinically extremely vulnerable if that is what their consultant believes is necessary.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I declare my interest as a vaccinator. I support the level of ambition that the Secretary of State has articulated, but does he distinguish between being offered a jab and actually getting a jab? Someone can be offered a hip replacement, but it does not mean they will get it any time soon.
Sajid Javid
First, I thank my right hon. Friend for being a vaccinator and for all the work he has done personally to help this country get through the pandemic. Of course there is a distinction—he is absolutely right. The NHS can offer an individual a jab—they might receive an email or a text saying, “Please come forward. Either book or walk in. You are eligible.”—but the individual has to come forward and take up that offer. That is why a huge amount of effort—even more effort than before—will go into persuading people to come forward.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
May I ask the Secretary of State why the Government have no coherent plan for dealing with delays to elective surgery and treatment? I say that because I asked some parliamentary questions about what impact the recently announced Government funding will have on waiting times over the next three years, but the answer said that no estimate has been made at this time. I then asked what assessment has been made about private sector capacity. Again, I was told that no estimate has been made. I ask the Secretary of State: where is the plan to deal with the huge backlog of elective treatment? Macmillan estimates that there are 50,000 missing cancer diagnoses in the UK and that 32,000 people are waiting for their first cancer treatment in England.
Sajid Javid
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have already announced the biggest catch-up fund for electives that the country has ever seen in order to deal with that challenge.. There is an extra £2 billion for the second half of this year and a minimum of £8 billion over the next three years, and the NHS is working on a detailed plan which will be published as soon as it is ready.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
The Health Secretary should be very proud of our world-leading vaccination programme, and I join the Secretary of State in sending those who are anxious the message that they should come forward and get their vaccinations.
This morning, breakfast telly was being broadcast from the Buxted Medical Centre, a GP surgery in my constituency, where huge anxiety was being expressed about how NHS staff would cope with delivering the vaccinations. I am extremely anxious about the statutory instrument that is mandating vaccinations for NHS staff, because I believe it means that 126,000 of them will leave the sector. Is this the right decision, when NHS staff are already saying that they are working all the hours God gives?
Sajid Javid
We will debate the SI in the House, and I shall be happy to talk more about it then, but I think that the number to which my hon. Friend referred is the number of people whom the NHS estimated to remain unvaccinated at the time when the Government said they were going ahead with the SI. I am pleased to inform her that since then the number has fallen. Tomorrow I will come to the House with the latest figure that we have, but it is improving all the time. When we introduced a similar measure in the residential care home sector, we saw the number of unvaccinated people fall day by day as more and more of them had positive engagement and took up the offer of a vaccine.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When the transmission rate of omicron is twice that of delta and we are asking people to work from home, why are we also telling them that they can go out and socialise in venues unmasked, although the contact tracing data from last December shows that it is in those social spaces that there are high levels of transmission?
Sajid Javid
This is about having a balanced and proportionate response, and that is the approach that the Government have taken. It is about recognising that while these restrictions help to slow the rate of spread, they also have a real impact on people’s lives.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement that booster vaccines were to be offered to all adults, and I was grateful for the opportunity to receive mine last week at Stafford’s St George’s Hospital, but to defeat the new covid-19 variant we need to vaccinate as many people as possible, so may I urge the Secretary of State to open a walk-in vaccination centre in Stafford?
Sajid Javid
I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting boosted. She may have heard me say earlier that we will be opening many more walk-in and pop-in centres. I have heard her representation and so has the vaccines Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), and we will certainly try to make that happen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) asked me earlier about proof of vaccination for children. Let me make it clear that although the proof will take the form of a letter, it can be ordered online. The digital pass access will come later.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The contain outbreak management fund is a vital resource used by local authorities and directors of public health, but it is due to end in March 2022. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether it will in fact continue beyond that date, and also whether it will be increased to support local authorities?
Sajid Javid
It is an important fund, and I will look into that.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for everything that he and his whole team are doing in what are incredibly challenging circumstances. Can I bring him back to the specific issue of access to booster appointments? He said in his statement that the booster roll-out was now a national programme rather than being locally led. Our local GP teams are doing a fantastic job, but will this difference in approach mean that more pharmacies, such as those in Basingstoke, will be able to be part of the booster roll-out in a way that they have not been to date?
Sajid Javid
The booster and vaccination programme is a national programme, but it is locally delivered. My right hon. Friend is right to point to improving local delivery in her area by having more pharmacists involved, and I can give her the assurance that part of our plan is to involve hundreds more pharmacists. The good news is that they are incredibly keen, so that is exactly what I expect to happen.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State and his Vaccines Minister for finally sorting out the problem of the under-18s not being able to access their proof of vaccination. Will he assure me that this will be operational in time for the end of the school term this week? On travel more generally, he agreed with me last week that once omicron became widespread here, the draconian, costly and complex travel rules that he introduced two weeks ago to prevent omicron from coming here would be “pointless”, to quote my word, so why are they still in place?
Sajid Javid
On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about the under-18s, the proof of vaccination for travel is available from today. The individual or the parent can go online and request it, and it comes in the form of a letter, which is perfectly acceptable to all the countries that we are aware of that require it. On his question on the current travel restrictions, he makes a very good point. Given that the omicron variant is fast becoming the dominant variant in our capital city and spreading rapidly throughout the country, the justification for having those rules is minimised. This is something that I have already raised with my colleagues in the Department for Transport, and I hope that we can act quickly.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the measures to enable travel for the 12 to 15 age group, which will be particularly welcomed by the Wray family in my constituency who are travelling tomorrow on what is possibly their last family holiday together. Will he clarify whether a person who is isolating today can switch to daily testing from tomorrow? Also, what plans does he have to extend the opening hours of the walk-in vaccination centres, such as the one at St Thomas’ Hospital just across the river, which will close at 8 pm tonight?
Sajid Javid
First, I hope that the Wray family will have many more holidays. No one wants this to be their last holiday as a family, but I am pleased that they can go ahead with their plans and that they will be able to access that proof for their children today. On the question of daily contact testing, I can confirm that people who are vaccinated—they have to be vaccinated—and isolating today will be able to move from isolation into daily contact testing from tomorrow, subject to the will of the House. On the opening hours, they will be increased, certainly for all the large vaccination centres. The minimum will be 12 hours, but many of them will be going way beyond that.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The aim is to get high numbers given their booster through the booster programme by the end of the year. How will the Secretary of State ensure that inequalities are not generated by the push for numbers rather than need? I am thinking of those who may not be able to access the various systems digitally and those in areas of health inequalities.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady raises an important point. Need is more important than the actual overall numbers. Of course we want to see the numbers increase, but the focus should always be on the most vulnerable first. The NHS will ensure that that happens through the work that is being done especially by GPs to ensure an increase in the number of homebound visits and visits to care homes and the more vulnerable people in society.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Is not the lesson from this pandemic that early and proportionate action saves lives and ends up preserving more, not fewer, of our freedoms and that it is strongly supported by the silent majority of the British people?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly the purpose of the plans we have set out and the measures we will be debating in the House tomorrow, and also of the action we are taking on the booster programme to get more people protected so that they can enjoy their freedoms.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
To my frustration, it was only immediately prior to this statement that I was able to obtain a copy of the regulations we are voting on tomorrow, so could the Secretary of State provide me with clarity with regard to mandatory passes, in two respects? First, will an individual no longer be able to demonstrate their covid status on the basis of natural immunity via a positive PCR test as regards accessing these high-risk venues? Secondly, can he reassure me that those who do not have access to computers or smartphones will still be able to apply for and obtain an NHS covid pass letter to gain access to the venues he has in mind?
Sajid Javid
There will be two ways to access high-risk events, be it a nightclub or larger events. The main way will be to take a lateral flow test and get a negative result, which would need to be registered through the NHS website and the proof could be through the pass or a text message result, for example. There will be an exemption from that for someone who is double-vaccinated. The proof of vaccination can also be given through the letter process.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
A constituent of mine has both anaphylaxis and urticaria. She has been told that she cannot be medically vaccinated. Amid all the talk about second doses and third doses, she cannot access even her first dose. What assurances can the Secretary of State give her regarding access to non-invasive forms of vaccination?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend asks a very important question. The rules around the need to be vaccinated, whether for passes or otherwise, do not apply to anyone who is medically exempt. Many people have received exemption certificates directly from their GP. That is the best route. Some individuals have called 111 and received advice. If I can be of direct assistance to my hon. Friend, then of course I will help.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I thank the NHS staff and volunteers at the vaccination centres in my constituency, including at the one at Aintree racecourse and at the one at Holy Rosary, where my wife and I had our booster jabs in the past few days. There is low vaccine take-up in some communities in the Liverpool city region, as in communities across the country. The Secretary of State has told us many times from the Dispatch Box, as did his predecessor, that nobody is protected until everybody is protected. Will he make sure that the resources go to those areas of the country where vaccine take-up is low and additional resources are needed so that our public health directors and teams, and the NHS, have everything they need to protect everybody through the vaccination programme?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Over the past hour or so we have, understandably, talked a lot about the importance of the booster programme, but it is still hugely important that we continue to focus on those that currently remain unvaccinated.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I welcome the news that a daily lateral flow test will replace self-isolation for those in contact with a covid case. I welcome the extension of the travel pass to 12 to 15-year-olds. I especially welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that a lateral flow test is the clear alternative to being jabbed for access to any venue and any event, so there is no reason for anyone to contact us asking us to vote against a “vaccine passport”. What would he say to those who have recently had covid, been told by the NHS that they should not have a PCR test for three months and then need to travel abroad for work purposes? What should they say when asked for proof of a negative PCR test?
Sajid Javid
I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s first remarks. This House is not being presented with a vaccine passport. That is not on the table. It is not in any regulation. The Government have been absolutely clear that when we talk about access to nightclubs or large and very large gatherings—very targeted events—the requirement is to take a free lateral flow test and make sure it is negative. If people do not want to do that, they can prove their vaccine status. It is up to that individual. That is what it is. It is not a vaccine passport, and the sooner we get rid of that misleading description of what the Government are proposing, the better. On the question that my hon. Friend has asked, I want to ensure I get the answer right, so if he will allow me, I will look into that and get back directly to him.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
My constituent Lexi is seven years old and has heart and lung conditions that mean she is clinically extremely vulnerable and has been home-schooled since the start of the pandemic. Her parents are understandably desperate for her to get vaccinated and to get back into school. I understand that it is the JCVI’s decision as to when that will take place, but can the Secretary of State give us some idea of what information the JCVI is waiting for, when it is likely to make a decision and whether he is doing everything in his power to hurry it up to make the decision that Lexi’s parents so desperately need?
Sajid Javid
I understand the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes, and there will be others across the country in a similar situation, so we understand the importance of this issue. The JCVI, as he says, is looking at this, which I confirmed earlier, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that before we can deploy any vaccine in any particular age group, it needs to be approved by our independent regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, as safe and effective. At this point in time, we do not have that approval. The MHRA is actively looking at this, but those two things are crucial before Ministers can make a decision.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I, too, had my booster vaccine last week. It was easy, and I had five different options near me, but that was here in London and after weeks of unsuccessfully trying in Bath to find anything near me or anything that was convenient with the times I had available. That is the experience of all my constituents in Bath. When will we have services that match those available here in London in constituencies such as Bath?
Sajid Javid
It is an important to make sure that capacity is increased throughout the country. I am pleased that the hon. Member has got boosted, by the way, but she is right to say that she, like her constituents, should be able to get it closer to home. With the plans that we have announced recently, and especially with the plans from this morning, I am confident that there will be many more opportunities to get boosted in Bath.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and for taking questions for more than an hour.
Point of Order
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek your advice? I have been trying to chase my papers for tomorrow’s debate on the statutory instruments, which have not been produced in large print for me. My office and the Vote Office have been chasing the Department of Health and Social Care, and we are not getting a response. I was wondering whether you could advise me on how I can get my papers, so that I can read them in readiness for tomorrow.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to reply to the hon. Lady. I have heard very clearly what she has had to say, and I will get back to the Department right now and chase that up immediately.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Look at that—instant solutions. I thank the Secretary of State for answering questions for over an hour on what is clearly a very important subject.
Bill Presented
Hares (Closed Season) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Richard Fuller, supported by Mr Robert Goodwill, Simon Hoare and Alicia Kearns, presented a Bill to establish a closed season during which the killing or taking of hares is prohibited; to repeal the seasonal prohibition of the sale of hares in the Hares Preservation Act 1892; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 217).
Armed Forces Bill
Monday 13th 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 Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 13 December 2021 - (13 Dec 2021)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment 2B, and the Government motion to disagree.
Leo Docherty
The House knows that this Bill is vital: it renews the Armed Forces Act 2006, so that the armed forces can continue to operate and enforce a system of discipline, and it also fulfils our commitment to further enshrine the armed forces covenant into law.
On Lords amendment 1B, we have been listening to hon. Members here and in the other place. The Government recognise the fact that all Members of this House want to do the best for our armed forces and to ensure that criminal wrongdoing is robustly addressed for the sake of our forces and for the victims of crime. We are particularly mindful about the prominence that statistics have recently played in this debate. The Government have always welcomed scrutiny of our own performance and the role that parliamentarians have in performing that scrutiny. We should ensure that the statistics that we use are clear, transparent and cover the most serious offending that Parliament is concerned about. I am happy to confirm that we will therefore commit to an expansion and an improvement of our existing annual statistical update on sexual offending in the armed forces to include other serious offences.
Our bulletin in spring 2022, in addition to reporting on rape statistics, will now include granular data on cases of murder and manslaughter, and, for sexual offending, those cases involving personnel serving in the armed forces who are under 18 at the time of the offence. Furthermore, from January 2022, we will start to record separately information about domestic violence and child sexual abuse in the service justice system, so that those, too, can be reported on in our spring 2023 bulletin.
These bulletins will include information relating to police investigations, as well as court martial proceedings, meaning that all data related to the categories of serious offences referred to in the amendment of Lord Thomas of Gresford will be included. This will include: the number of reported incidents; how many cases are referred from the service police to the service prosecution authority; how many cases the service prosecution authority are able to prosecute; how many cases go to court martial; and how many cases result in a guilty verdict. We believe that this will increase the transparency of, and the confidence in, the service justice system, and we welcome this scrutiny. Greater reporting will demonstrate the good work that we are doing through this Bill, not least the establishment of the defence serious crime unit, and it is right that data is available to hold Government to account.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I have been listening very carefully to what my hon. Friend has to say. He has talked about the need for transparency, and, clearly, that is demonstrable and welcome. On the reports to which he now refers, he obviously hopes that they will make his case for him as they are published. If they do not, what happens then, other than just becoming tomes to gather dust in his or his successor’s office or in the Secretary of State’s office? In practical terms, what will be done to change the policies?
Leo Docherty
I reassure my hon. Friend that we will keep this under review. We are prepared to be judged by our performance.
Simon Hoare
I tell my children that I keep a lot of things under review, knowing full well that I will never acquiesce in what they are asking for—I hope they are not listening this evening. I know that my hon. Friend understands that this is a serious point for many of us. Keeping something under review, to ask us now to support the Government’s line, is laudable, but we need a bit more flesh on the bones as to what happens if the data in this report does not land where he and I—let us be frank—would hope that it would. One can keep something under review, but if there is no promise to come back with changes to the legislation, that is a pie-crust promise.
Leo Docherty
I expect the data to justify our confidence in the service justice system. My hon. Friend knows that the Government believe very strongly that the SJS needs to retain the full complement of capability because our armed forces are expeditionary by design and our justice system also needs to be expeditionary. He may not mean it sincerely when he deals with the children, but he will see that in my remarks this evening we certainly are sincere in our position.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes the point that we are expeditionary by design. I understand that, but I do not see how that links to the issue addressed by Lords amendment 1B, which is essentially that, where the offence is committed in the United Kingdom, unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary, which might involve an expeditionary issue, there should logically be a presumption that the starting point is dealing with it in the civilian system. What contradiction is there between the expeditionary nature of our armed forces—under certain circumstances, but not all—and a rebuttable presumption that the civilian system should hear offences committed in the United Kingdom?
Leo Docherty
My hon. Friend makes the case for flexibility, and I am pleased to confirm that we retain that flexibility through the protocol we have legislated for. The bottom line is that the civilian prosecutor will always have the final say, and it is principally for that reason that I urge hon. Members to reject Lords amendment 1B.
Sir Robert Neill
I understand what the Minister says about the civilian prosecutor’s ultimately having the final say, but an issue was raised last time about the role of the Attorney General, and whether there was a dangerous jurisdictional aspect in the Attorney’s consent being involved. The amendment removes that stumbling block. With that removed, and given what the Minister has said about flexibility, what now is the objection to the amendment in lieu, as opposed to the original Lords amendment?
Leo Docherty
The objection principally is about our need for an expeditionary system that should not be salami sliced. If we start to take components out of our service justice system, it would undermine the confidence that those serving should have. That is an additional reason for us to reject the amendment this evening.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Minister is discussing an incredibly important issue, but in terms of “doing the right thing for the armed forces”, does he share my belief that it is also important that the Ministry of Defence resolve with the Home Office the outstanding question of the free visa applications for servicemen and women who are of non-UK nationality? Does he share my belief that the current proposal of 12 years’ service before such a free visa is available is too long a period for those involved, for us and for the wider public?
Leo Docherty
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has raised such an important question. We are hugely grateful for the amazing contribution that our foreign and Commonwealth servicepeople make. I cannot pre-empt the Government announcement on the results of the consultation, but return of service is an important principle and I think it will be at the heart of the Government’s policy when it is announced in due course.
Dr Lewis
I am glad to be such a cause of pleasure to my hon. and gallant Friend. I am not a lawyer, so this might be entirely irrelevant, but I do not think so: before he leaves this first amendment, could he say whether those serious cases of murder abroad, such as has been reported in relation to an incident in Kenya some years ago—I appreciate that that case may still be live—are affected by this tussle between the upper House and this House on the question of whether such matters should be considered by court martial or civilian court? In other words, where there is a failure of the local police in another country, is it the Government’s case that the court martial system or the civilian legal system is better able to deal with it?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s contribution; that is a very good case in point, and points to circumstances—although the numbers may be very small—in which the British military has to deploy to ungoverned spaces, let us say. Of course, that is not the case with regard to Kenya, but there are definitely advantages to the expeditionary capability of our service justice system.
I move now to Lords amendment 2B, which would require a report to be laid within six months of this Bill’s receiving Royal Assent, setting out the implications of not applying the new covenant duty to central Government. The Government have already committed to reviewing the operation of the covenant duty to inform us on whether other policy areas or functions could be usefully included. Having listened carefully to the issues that have been so vigorously raised, and recognising the strength of feeling across both Houses, I can now commit to going further.
Indeed, we are going further than Lords amendment 2B in the scope of the review we have in mind. We will review the operation of the new duty across the UK and will consider whether it would be beneficial to add to its scope. That will include specific consideration of whether central Government and any of their functions could usefully be added. The Government will report on the review as part of the covenant annual report in 2023, 18 months after the new duty is expected to come into effect. That timescale is more realistic than the six-month timeline from Royal Assent suggested by their lordships, which in our judgment is too short a period for any meaningful review to take place.
Given that we expect to see the new duty standing up in law by the middle of 2022 at the earliest, we also need to allow for an implementation period to give local authorities time to adjust to their new responsibilities. We therefore believe that to conduct and publish a review at the 18-month point of the new duty having been in operation is most appropriate. However, given the level of interest in the new duty, we will provide an interim update in the covenant annual report in December 2022, some six months after the duty is expected to come into effect. At that point, we will be able to say more about the scope and methodology for conducting the review, and MPs will have the opportunity to assess and comment in the 2022 covenant report debate.
The Government are committed to ensuring that parliamentarians from both Houses can contribute and give their views as part of the review process. I put on record my thanks and appreciation for the contributions of Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Craig of Radley. They, like us, want to see good law put in place to support our armed forces. In the light of the commitment that I have given, I urge the House to support the Government in resisting Lords amendment 2B.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
In February, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), the shadow Defence Secretary, set out the Labour party’s core principles for our defence and national security, which are based not on party politics but on Britain’s strategic national interest. They are: an unshakeable commitment to NATO; non-negotiable support for our nuclear deterrent; a resolute commitment to international law, universal human rights and the multilateral treaties and organisations that uphold them; and a determination to see British investment directed first to British industry not just because of how we think about defence and national security but because we seek to build a more resilient economy and a country that can stand more firmly on its own two feet. At the heart of those four principles lies a commitment to our armed forces personnel: the men and women who are the lifeblood of our defence and national security; those who serve to protect us.
The Conservative Government have been complacent when it comes to our armed forces and our national security more widely. Just as threats against the UK are increasing, the Prime Minister decided to break an election promise and cut the size of the Army by 10,000. Under the Government and this Prime Minister, our country is becoming less safe and our brave service personnel increasingly undervalued and under-rewarded.
I was only recently appointed to the shadow Defence team, but standing at the Dispatch Box to highlight the weaknesses that sit at the heart of the Bill is already starting to feel like groundhog day. The Bill is a missed opportunity. It was a one-in-a-Parliament opportunity to ensure that our world-class armed forces are supported by world-class legislation, but glaring gaps at its heart mean that it will fall short and fail to live up to its full potential. If the Government had chosen to support the Lords amendments, we would have been guaranteed a more robust approach to dealing with serious crimes committed by service personnel, and we would have had clear accountability and transparency about the role of central Government in delivering the armed forces covenant.
Labour supports the Bill, but we have consistently pressed the Government to ensure that its content matches the ambition. As I set out last week in this Chamber, the Bill is a missed opportunity to deliver on the laudable promises made in the armed forces covenant for all personnel and veterans, and their families. To that end, we have worked closely with hon. Members in this place, noble Lords in the other place and service charities to amend the Bill in the interests of our service personnel.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Can the hon. Member help the House by explaining what he thinks the Government might be able to do but could not if the Bill had the protections that he wanted over central Government action?
Stephen Kinnock
As I will address a little later in my remarks, the huge disconnect here is between the level of accountability that local government will be held to compared with that for central Government. So we end up in an absurd situation where a school governor has a greater level of accountability for the covenant than the Defence Secretary. I am not sure what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) thinks about that, but it appears to be a bizarre state of affairs.
I pay particular tribute to Lords Mackay, Thomas and Craig for their efforts in working with us in our attempts to improve this legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that the Labour party has been pushing the argument strongly that the most serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration, should be tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK. The case for that is overwhelming, because the investigation and prosecution of those crimes within the service justice system simply does not work.
The latest Ministry of Defence figures show that between 2015 and 2020 the conviction rate for rape cases tried under court martial was just 9%, whereas the latest data suggest that the conviction rate was 59% for cases that reached civilian courts, with considerably more cases being tried each year. Moreover, more than three in four of the victims were women, and seven in 10 held the rank of private. By rejecting Lords amendment 1B in lieu, the Government are not only letting down women in the lower ranks, but undermining their own policy of seeking to recruit more women to the armed forces. The Army has committed itself to a 30% target by 2030 for female recruits, but has not yet produced a clear plan of how that will be achieved. The Government therefore need to think carefully about the message they are sending by resisting this amendment, because until there is fairness, transparency and justice in these cases, the actions of a minority will continue to tarnish the reputation of our world-class armed forces and will continue to have a chilling effect on female recruitment.
We do, however, welcome the fact that the Minister has today acknowledged the need to publish data on all the offences listed in this amendment—murder, manslaughter, domestic abuse, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration; for that data to include under-18s for the first time; and for that data to cover both investigations and prosecutions at all stages of the service justice system, including reports of incidents, how many are referred from service police to service prosecution authority, how many the service prosecution are able to prosecute, how many go to court martial and how many convictions there are. But I must tell the Minister that Labour remains committed to moving these serious offences into civilian courts, and we will continue to push the Government on this issue.
This matter is not closed; our concerns have not been allayed. There remain many unanswered questions, so I ask the Minister: what will the Government do if conviction rates for one or more of those serious crimes is concerningly low? Will the Government reconsider this approach? Why will they not commit to a performance review, based on this data? We view this issue as unfinished business, and we know where the weight of opinion lies in this House. As the Conservative hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) clearly stated last week in this Chamber:
“Conviction rates for rape are lower in military courts than they are in civilian courts. That is a fact…The MOD accepts that the contested conviction rate at court martial is significantly lower than it is in the Crown court.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 104.]
We therefore hope that Ministers will reflect again on the recommendations from the Government-commissioned Lyons review, as well as the proposals made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) in her Select Committee on Defence Sub-Committee report, “Protecting Those Who Protect Us”. We must improve conviction rates, and moving these offences into civilian courts offers us the best chance of doing so.
Perhaps the most unfathomable aspect of this Bill is the Government’s decision to offload responsibility for the armed forces away from central Government and on to overstretched local authorities—it is utterly illogical and indefensible. The Bill piles new and often vague statutory responsibilities to deliver the covenant on a wide range of public bodies, so it is impossible to understand why on earth those responsibilities should not apply to central Government. We are faced with 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 based on national guidance. Organisations such as Help for Heroes, Cobseo and other service charities, alongside Members from both sides of this House and in the other place, have lined up to criticise Ministers for shirking their responsibilities.
The Bill was an opportunity for the Government to lead by example and to demonstrate that credible leadership depends on accountability and on practising what they preach, but they appear to be intent on palming off all the responsibility to local government. Social care, pensions, employment and immigration are on the long list of areas not covered by the legislation, and the exclusion of the Ministry of Defence from the responsible public bodies means that the Bill offers little to actively serving personnel. The Government are already hitting many servicemen and women with a real-terms pay cut this year.
As I said at the Dispatch Box last week, we are left with a Bill that will not deliver practical action for the squaddie in dilapidated living accommodation who is without basics such as heating and hot water; the veteran struggling with their mental health and waiting times for treatment that are more than twice as long as Government targets suggest they should be; or the dispersed service family who struggle with the cost of childcare and getting into work. Central Government must be held to the same measurable, enforceable national standards that local authorities and agencies are held to. Only then can we truly end the postcode lottery on the armed forces covenant.
The Government’s concession of a review of the operation of the duty and whether central Government should be added is welcome, but ultimately, it is a recognition that the Bill is drafted too narrowly. How will parliamentarians be involved in the review? I recognise that the Minister mentioned that, but we need a clear assurance about it. Knowing the strength of feeling on the issue, I encourage him to ensure that parliamentarians from both Houses and the Chairs of relevant Select Committees are involved in and can give evidence to the review. We will keep a close eye on the review process, but we still believe that the due regard principle should be broadened to cover all areas of potential disadvantage for servicepeople.
The Opposition have been clear throughout the process that the Bill must become statute, not least because we must provide our armed forces with the solid and stable legal basis that they require to be able to operate. Although we welcome the concessions that the Minister has promised today, we remain profoundly disappointed that the Government have continued to resist the Lords amendments, thereby running the clock down. Let me be clear that it is unfinished business.
The Minister knows full well that there is deep unhappiness about the way that the Government have handled the process and profound concern about the way in which the weaknesses in the Bill will ultimately lead to it failing to serve the best interests of our services personnel. I therefore assure the House that Labour, as the party of the armed forces, will robustly hold the Government to account. I put the Minister on notice that he has not heard the last from us on these matters.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I am pleased to speak in this important debate. The Armed Forces Act 2006, which the Minister mentioned, needs to be upgraded, so the Bill needs to pass in this House. It was introduced in January and here we are, almost at Christmas. I will stand corrected—perhaps he can clarify—but if we do not pass it, the armed forces are not beholden to Parliament. Given the experience of Parliament and Government in recent weeks, it would be unwise to have an untethered armed forces at this juncture.
Bills often ping-pong backwards and forwards between here and the other place, but we should bear in mind who it was in the other place that actually scrutinised this Bill. They are senior figures in the justice system, but they are also ex-senior military, who understand the very issue in detail. This has not been thrown back to us just to test the will of this House; it has been thrown back, now for a second time, because there is something serious going on here. I think the Government now find themselves in isolation, and on their own compared with all the charity groups, the Opposition and indeed—dare I say it—the Defence Committee. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who has taken through, over the last 18 months, the women in the armed forces inquiry, which reported only last week. The Minister has very kindly responded to that—not least here in this House, but also in a Westminster Hall debate—but we know all the arguments and what is on either side of this.
The Minister mentioned salami slicing, saying that if we were to go down the road of allowing the civilian courts to deal with murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault, it would somehow dilute our ability to hold the armed forces to account. By their very nature, our armed forces are expeditionary in what they do, but he knows perfectly well that the yellow card, and indeed the rules of engagement, work extremely well overseas. This is to do with what happens here in the UK, and there is a disjunction between those who actually go through the civilian courts and those who go through the military courts. I am afraid that there is an absence of military experience in dealing with such difficult cases, which is why we are seeing such a disconnect between the conviction rates for civilians and those for the military.
I look to the Minister and say thank you for moving this far, but time is running out and we need to get this Bill through. I do hope that he will hear the concerns not just of this House and of the Committee, but of Justice Lyons. He did a service justice review for the armed forces when I was in the Veterans Minister’s shoes. When I was sitting on the Front Bench as Minister for the Armed Forces, I asked Justice Lyons to consider where this should go and what was his conclusion. His recommendation was exactly what we are calling for today. So I ask the Minister to recognise the wealth of encouragement, and also to recognise that this is nothing to do with salami slicing. This is to do with services for our armed forces personnel, and that is what we are calling for today.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
There is a debt of gratitude that we owe to members of the armed forces, and we have seen that acutely over the last few days as they mobilised to help with the vaccine booster campaign. I received my booster on Friday, and there was certainly a large armed forces presence there. As well as thanking members of the NHS, I would like to extend my gratitude to members of the armed forces who are contributing to that campaign over the next few weeks.
As we renew the Armed Forces Act, it would have been great if we had done so with some provisions that delivered a real impact for members of the armed forces. I suppose the litmus test for this is: will members of the armed forces notice any real difference as a result of this legislation? I think that for the majority the answer, sadly, is no, and that is disappointing.
The Lords amendments today are a final attempt by those in the other place to flesh out the provisions of this Bill, and to attempt to improve what had been billed as a great opportunity to improve our offerings to those who serve. It is disappointing that the expertise of Members of the other place, which was mentioned by the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), has essentially been disregarded. That is not how this should work. I am not a great fan of the other place myself, but I must admit that there is real legal and military expertise there that was not listened to or paid attention to, which is disappointing.
What would we have liked to see? We would have liked to see improvements in service accommodation. As the Bill progressed, the SNP put forward very modest amendments on this, such as asking that the basic standards of accommodation for social housing should also apply to members of the armed forces. That was a reasonable amendment, but it was thrown out. We saw no movement on visa fees for Commonwealth service personnel. There was the idea that they should serve for 12 years before we even consider this, but that is utterly unrealistic; it is not a reasonable position for us to take.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Could those who wish to make separate contributions stand so we know how many there are?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker
The debate finishes at 6.29 pm and we would like to hear from the Minister at the end, so I ask everybody to be conscious of the need to get everybody in.
Sir Robert Neill
I shall be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I welcome my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister’s tone. He has sought to be constructive. I appreciate that he has made a number of concessions, and I am glad the Government have done that. In particular, I welcome his tribute to the noble Lord Mackay and others. Anyone who knows anything about the law and Government does not lightly mix with James Mackay, and I am glad that has been recognised. I also welcome and endorse the comments made about the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) in this regard.
On defence justice issues, I rather agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the Chair of the Defence Committee. There has been movement and I am glad about that, but I am still not convinced by the salami-slicing point. I cannot for the life of me see how Lords amendment 1B creates any difficulty.
My real concern—the additional point I was going to make beyond the interventions I have already made—is about the way the defence serious crimes unit will be structured. Hopefully, there will not be a large number of cases to prosecute, but those involving rape and serious sexual offences in particular will almost invariably require great sensitivity in handling the investigation and the presentation in court, both in prosecution and in defending. Inevitably, such cases—where a member of the forces is either a complainant or a victim, or perhaps both—will by their nature, very properly, engage the highest level of public interest in the broadest sense. The concern is whether a small prosecuting body will ever be able to gather the critical mass of expertise to adequately do justice in those cases, whatever the good intentions.
Carol Monaghan
Does the hon. Gentleman share the other concern raised regarding the gender composition of courts martial? Unless we have gender parity, it is very difficult for all-male or majority male courts to understand properly the experience women may have had in that situation.
Sir Robert Neill
I understand the point, and I am sure that as more women advance into the senior ranks of the armed forces that will be dealt with. In fairness, however, I should say that if those cases were to be dealt with by a jury in the civilian justice system, there is not a quota on gender parity in juries either. So while I take the thrust of the hon. Lady’s point, I do not think there is an exact comparison to be made.
My bigger concern is that I hope the Minister will accept that the sensible thing to do would be for the service system, at the very least, to bring in expertise from the independent Bar, from the independent legal sector, to deal with these cases, rather than try to do something and not admit that we may not have the capacity to do it effectively ourselves. There are plenty of experienced people who could do that, and that would be an important step forward.
There are also other bits of unfinished business. It would be helpful if the Minister committed to bringing forward the remaining items of the Henriques review that are not covered in the Bill. That would give us a comprehensive approach. Nobody wants to delay the Bill, but I hope the Minister will reflect on my regret that we have not taken up one of the key points of the review by His Honour Judge Shaun Lyons. Just as one does not trifle lightly with Lord Mackay of Clashfern, it is difficult to think of anyone who has had more experience, both as a naval officer—as a lieutenant commander and so on for a number of years—and then as a senior circuit judge licensed to try all cases relating to murder, rape and serious sexual offences. I do not know of anyone else in my legal career who combines the two in a greater degree than Shaun Lyons. I am therefore disappointed that, having accepted so much else, we have not followed through on the final and critical element of his report. I hope the Minister will accept that the Ministry should not be too grand as to close the door to that, because I have not yet heard a convincing argument as to why that element of Judge Lyons’s recommendation was not taken forward.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Bill is excellent and much needed. It will improve the lives of service personnel while modernising our military for the future. I support the Bill and commend the Minister for getting it through so far.
I want to focus on Lords amendment 1B, which would see murder, manslaughter and rape with penetration tried in a civilian court. The House is aware that the Defence Committee’s inquiry into the experiences of women in the armed forces opened up a catalogue of harrowing evidence around sexual assault, rape, gang rape, poor standards of investigation, and the manipulation of power to deliberately disadvantage servicewomen in complaining or seeking justice. Indeed, the Committee concurred with the recommendations of the Government-commissioned, judge-led Lyons review, which stated that rape should be heard in civilian courts. Given the evidence, I do not believe the proposed concurrent jurisdiction protocol will be good enough to cut through the laddish culture that is entrenched in the military system as it stands. I welcome the Minister’s comments on transparency, but I fail to see how collecting even more data on serious offences, as proposed by the MOD, will translate into improved outcomes for victims of rape. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) explored, I would like to see how we will improve the lot of women in our military based on collecting data, but I am pleased with the establishment of the defence serious crimes unit, which is a mammoth step forward for the MOD.
Last week the House rejected an amendment that would have mandated all rape cases to be heard under civilian jurisdiction except in extraordinary circumstances, as determined by the Attorney General. The MOD rejected the amendment on the basis that it would have politicised the process. Lords amendment 1B accepts and rectifies this by leaving responsibility for the decision to the Director of Public Prosecutions, after consultation only with the Attorney General. This removes the MOD’s objection, and I am not convinced by the argument of expeditionary salami-slicing. The amendment means that cases of rape perpetrated in the UK would primarily be heard in civilian courts unless there are exceptional circumstances. I know that the 4,200 women who contributed to the Defence Committee’s inquiry and people across the country—both military and civilian, and both men and women—who believe in British values of fairness and justice will want the MOD to consider this point.
John Redwood
I will be supporting the Government, as they have made welcome progress on creating better conditions and support for our armed forces, but I would like to press the Minister on housing. When we wish to recruit and retain the best people in the future as we have in the past, it is important that we provide something better on housing than we traditionally have. It is a disgrace if armed services personnel, after providing substantial service to our country, cannot afford to buy a house of their own, and instead have to scramble to get rented accommodation, which they often find difficult.
I hope the MOD can do more through its potential and current schemes to promote home ownership, and to promote buying property nearer home base, for example, so that people leaving the armed forces have a property of their own. If service personnel are not able to do that, a surrogate scheme is needed so that when they leave the armed forces after holding important jobs and earning reasonable money, they are not debarred from the private housing market and they do not come to see their service career as a gap in making those contributions and building up savings in a house of their own. They should have as much opportunity to own their own property as the rest of the community.
Yes of course we need an expeditionary service and service personnel may need to serve in a variety of places abroad, but that should not get in the way of either having a home of their own with their family or having the wherewithal to have a home of their own when they leave the armed services. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister will sympathise and do more to make sure it can be true. I do not think we need a legal requirement, but we need a firm pledge of intent from the Government.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
This is the first time I have contributed to this Bill. There are a number of experts in the Chamber on both the legal processes and the military who have far more to say than I do, but as an assiduous parliamentarian I have kept up with proceedings as best I can. As I watched last week’s debate on almost exactly the same amendment, a couple of questions struck me as a layperson that I hope the Minister may be able to answer.
First, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who last week was unfortunately put in the impossible position of either having to defend and vote with the recommendations of her own inquiry or lose her Government job as a Parliamentary Private Secretary. I commend her for her integrity and fortitude in doing what she thought was the correct thing.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for the constructive contributions from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts). I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Aberavon will hold the Government to account and help to mark our homework alongside us. That scrutiny is welcome.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East rejected the notion that there was a risk of salami-slicing the service justice system. He rightly paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, and I join him in that. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West suggested that there should be more women on the boards of courts martial. That is good, because that is exactly what the Defence Secretary has committed to. That is a very important commitment and he will be held to account on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made some interesting remarks about the defence serious crime unit and made an appeal for independent expertise to be drawn into it. That is exactly what will happen. He paid a fitting tribute to Justice Shaun Lyons, who is, I entirely accept, an extremely credible voice with regard to matters of jurisprudence. However, we also have huge regard for Justice Henriques, and his support for the maintenance of concurrent jurisdiction guided our thinking in this regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham reflected on her own inquiry. Again, I put on record our gratitude for that hugely important piece of work, which we will use as a lever to accelerate institutional change to ensure that women can thrive in military careers, given that since 2018 every single role has been open to women to serve in. She questioned the validity of increasing and expanding our reporting on data, but that will be a mechanism for holding the Government to account, and we welcome that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) asked a good question about housing. I can give him absolute confirmation that that is at the heart of the covenant provision. That is why, along with education and healthcare, it is one of the pillars of the statutory obligation in the statutory guidance. We are putting a huge injection of cash into accommodation provision not just for service families but for single servicemen and women. The highly successful Forces Help to Buy scheme has helped thousands of service personnel to buy their own homes. The Government have put more than £400 million into that. I do not need to tell the House that the military has been an engine of home ownership and social mobility for some 400 years. We look forward to maintaining that magnificent and deeply honourable tradition.
The hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) attempted to draw an analogy with the Metropolitan police. He ignored the fact, however, that our armed forces are designed to go around the world and defeat the nation’s enemies, which the Metropolitan police is not required to do.
We have listened and we will be judged by our performance, which is why we have set up an admirably transparent system for reporting on our data, and we welcome that scrutiny. We should say very clearly that we have confidence in the provisions in the Bill and in what it delivers. Ultimately, it will deliver a tangible, practical benefit for those serving and for our magnificent veteran community. It is a Bill for the armed forces; we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude and we should be very proud.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment 1B accordingly disagreed to.
Lords amendment 2B disagreed to.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1B and 2B;
That Leo Docherty, Alan Mak, James Sunderland, Suzanne Webb, Stephen Kinnock, Liz Twist and Carol Monaghan be members of the Committee;
That Leo Docherty be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Andrea Jenkyns.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will now pause momentarily in order that people may leave the Chamber in a covid-safe manner.
Subsidy Control Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 22 September 2021 (Subsidy Control Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Paul Scully.)
Subsidy Control Bill
Monday 13th December 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Subsidy Control Act 2022 View all Subsidy Control Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 December 2021 - large print - (13 Dec 2021)
20:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 31 / Noes: 292 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 180 / Noes: 292 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 178 / Noes: 292 - Question accordingly negatived.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Annual report on climate change impacts—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must once every 12 months lay a report before Parliament setting out the impact of subsidies granted in the preceding 12 months on the environment and climate change.
(2) Any report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of subsidies granted in the preceding 12 months on the UK’s ability to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
(3) The first report must be laid before Parliament within 12 months of this Act being passed.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before parliament detailing the climate change impacts of subsidies granted that year.
New clause 3—Post-award investigations—
‘(1) The CMA may conduct an investigation in relation to a subsidy that has been granted or a subsidy scheme that has been made.
(2) A decision under subsection (1) may be made in relation to any subsidy or subsidy scheme in respect of which the CMA considers—
(a) that there has or may have been a failure to comply with the requirements of Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 2, or
(b) that there has or may have been a failure to comply with the transparency obligations set out in Chapter 3 of Part 2.
(3) Where the CMA makes a decision to investigate a subsidy or scheme under subsection (1), it must direct the public authority to provide it with—
(a) any assessment carried out by the public authority as to whether the financial assistance fell within the meaning of “subsidy” or “subsidy scheme” for the purposes of this Act, and the reasons for that conclusion,
(b) any assessment carried out by the public authority as to whether the financial assistance if assessed to constitute a subsidy or subsidy scheme would comply with the requirements of Chapter 1 and 2 of Part 2 and the reasons for that conclusion,
(c) any evidence relevant to those assessments,
(d) in a case where such assessments were not provided, the reasons for the assessments not being provided,
(e) any information that the public authority failed to enter in the subsidy database in accordance with Chapter 3 of Part 2, and
(f) such other information as is specified in regulations under section 60(8)(a).
(4) Where the CMA decides to conduct an investigation under subsection (1), the direction given under subsection (3) must be made before the end of 20 working days beginning with the day on which the subsidy is given or the scheme is made.
(5) The CMA must send a copy of the direction given under subsection (3) to the public authority and the Secretary of State.
(6) The public authority must provide to the CMA the information required under subsection (3) before the end of the information period as defined in section 60(7).’
This new clause provides the CMA with the power to conduct a post-award investigation where the public authority has or may have failed to comply with its requirements.
Amendment 10, in clause 10, page 6, line 31, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
‘(a) is made by—
(i) a Minister of the Crown,
(ii) the Welsh Ministers,
(iii) the Scottish Ministers, or
(iv) a Northern Ireland department; and’.
This amendment allows devolved administrations to make streamlined subsidy schemes.
Amendment 18, page 6, line 33, at end insert—
‘(4A) A streamlined subsidy scheme may be made, in particular, to support areas of relative economic deprivation.’
This amendment would allow for streamlined subsidy schemes to be made for the purposes of supporting areas of deprivation.
Amendment 19, in clause 11, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
‘(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must seek the consent of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.
(5) If consent to the making of the regulations is not given by any of those authorities within the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is sought from that authority, the Secretary of State may make the regulations without consent.
(6) If regulations are made in reliance on subsection (5), the Secretary of State must make a statement to the House of Commons explaining why the Secretary of State decided to make the regulations without the consent of the authority or authorities concerned.’
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the Devolved Administrations before making regulations under this section. Where such consent is not given within one month, the Secretary of State may make the regulations without that consent, but must make a statement to the House of Commons explaining their decision.
Amendment 20, in clause 32, page 17, line 10, at end insert—
‘(c) the subsidy database is subject to routine audit to verify the accuracy and completeness of entries.’
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to ensure that the database is subject to routine audit.
Amendment 1, in clause 33, page 17, line 21, leave out “£500,000” and insert “£500”.
This amendment would reduce the threshold for entering subsidies into the subsidy database from £500,000 to £500.
Amendment 2, page 17, line 24, leave out “one year” and insert “one month”.
This amendment would require subsidies or schemes to be entered in the database within one month of being made, rather than one year, if given in the form of a tax measure.
Amendment 13, page 17, line 24, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
‘(a) if given in the form of a tax measure, an entry with a provisional tax deduction value must be entered within one month, and a final value entered within one month of the date of the tax declaration, or’.
This ensures that tax measure subsidies are entered in the subsidy database within one month.
Amendment 3, page 17, line 26, leave out “six months” and insert “one month”.
This amendment would require subsidies or schemes to be entered in the database within one month of being made, rather than six months, if given in any form other than a tax measure.
Amendment 4, page 17, line 33, leave out “one year” and insert “one month”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 2.
Amendment 5, page 17, line 35, leave out “six months” and insert “one month”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.
Amendment 6, in clause 34, page 18, line 27, at end insert—
“(j) the date the subsidy or scheme was entered onto the database.”
This amendment would require the date a subsidy or scheme was entered onto the database to be included in the information public authorities are required to enter into the database.
Amendment 14, in clause 36, page 19, line 17, after “requirements” insert
“with the exception of duties under section 33,”.
This amendment requires that subsidies under the minimal financial assistance threshold are entered in the subsidy control database.
Amendment 7, page 20, line 4, at end insert—
‘(7) In this section, the reference to the subsidy control requirements does not include the requirements as to transparency in Chapter 3 of Part 2.’
This amendment requires that “minimal financial assistance” subsidies are not exempt from the database transparency requirements, while remaining exempt from other subsidy control requirements.
Amendment 21, in clause 41, page 23, line 15, leave out “£14,500,000” and insert “£500”.
This amendment would make section 33 applicable to SPEI subsidies worth more than £500.
Amendment 22, page 23, line 16, leave out subsection (b).
This amendment would make section 33 applicable to SPEI subsidies worth more than £500.
Amendment 23, in clause 55, page 30, line 40, after “State” insert
‘, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland’.
This amendment extends the call-in powers under this section to the Devolved Administrations.
Amendment 24, page 31, line 2, after “State” insert
‘, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland’.
This amendment relates to Amendment 23.
Amendment 25, page 31, line 7, after “State” insert
‘, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland’.
This amendment relates to Amendment 23.
Amendment 9, in clause 66, page 37, line 39, leave out paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and insert—
‘(a) all subsidies and subsidy schemes granted in the past 12 months, and
(b) an assessment of the extent to which they satisfy the subsidy control principles and the energy and environment principles.
(2) Any report made under this section must be formally laid before parliament by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State must make an oral statement to the House of Commons when any report under this section is laid.’
This amendment ensures that the annual report prepared by the CMA includes all subsidies along with its assessment of the extent to which they fulfil the 7 principles set out in the Bill. The report also places a requirement for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament when a report is laid.
Amendment 26, in clause 68, page 39, line 1, at end insert—
‘(3A) The Chair of the CMA Board may appoint up to three non-executive members to the Subsidy Advice Unit established under subsection (1) in order to ensure that the Unit includes at least one person with relevant experience in relation to each of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.’
This amendment would allow the CMA Chair to appoint up to three non-executive members to ensure that the Unit includes at least one person with experience in relation to each of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Amendment 8, in clause 70, page 39, line 35, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment intends to allow individual subsidies given under a subsidy scheme to be reviewed, without the requirement for the broader subsidy scheme to be reviewed too.
Amendment 12, page 40, line 16, at end insert—
‘(c) the Welsh Ministers,
(d) the Scottish Ministers, or
(e) a Northern Ireland department;’.
This amendment includes the devolved administrations in the list of those who can apply to the Competition Appeal Tribunal for a review of a subsidy decision.
Amendment 27, in clause 79, page 46, line 3, at end insert—
‘(5A) Before issuing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must seek the consent of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.
(5B) If consent to the making of the regulations is not given by any of those authorities within the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is sought from that authority, the Secretary of State may make the regulations without that consent.
(5C) If regulations are made in reliance on subsection (5B), the Secretary of State must publish a statement explaining why the Secretary of State decided to make the regulations without the consent of the authority or authorities concerned.’
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to gain the consent of the Devolved Administrations before issuing guidance under Clause 79.
Amendment 15, in schedule 1, page 51, line 8, after “concerns” insert
‘and areas of relative economic deprivation’.
This amendment includes areas of relative economic deprivation as an example of the equity rationales that subsidies should address.
Amendment 16, page 52, line 6, at end insert—
‘(c) consistency with the United Kingdom achieving its net-zero commitments established under the Climate Change Act 2008.’
This amendment adds consistency with the UK’s net-zero commitments as a particular consideration for public authorities before deciding whether to give a subsidy.
Amendment 11, page 52, line 6, at end insert—
‘Net Zero
H Subsidies should not normally encourage behaviour which will have a negative effect on the achievement of the UK’s net-zero commitments.’
This amendment adds a subsidy control principle relating to the UK’s net zero commitments.
Amendment 17, in schedule 2, page 52, line 15, at end insert—
‘(c) delivering the UK’s net-zero commitments established under the Climate Change Act 2008.’
This amendment would ensure that subsidies related to energy and the environment incentivise the beneficiary to help deliver the UK’s net-zero commitments.
Kirsty Blackman
Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a delight to be present in this incubation Chamber, where viruses from all around these islands—every corner of them—can come to mix freely, so that we can return this toxic cocktail to our constituents, constituencies and families. I am delighted to be able to be physically present at this time.
I will speak briefly to new clause 1, which is in my name and those of my colleagues, as well as the other amendments that stand in my name. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) will fill in the rest of the details and explain more about our rationale for the new clause.
The logic behind new clause 1 is that agricultural subsidies do not fit neatly into subsidy control regimes. That has been recognised by the World Trade Organisation, which is the reason for its agreement on agriculture; it has been recognised by the European Union, which is the reason for the common agricultural policy; indeed, it has been recognised across the world. We, and the Scottish Government, still have no idea why the UK Government decided to go against the flow and include agricultural subsidies in the Bill, rather than providing a separate arrangement for them.
The new clause simply removes agriculture from the consideration. It does not mean that we should not have a control regime of some sort for agriculture, and it does not mean that we should not have rules relating to agriculture. It means that agriculture does not fit neatly here, and should not form part of the main subsidy control regime in the Bill.
Amendment 10 relates to streamlined subsidy schemes. The change for which we are asking would allow devolved Administrations to make such schemes. Given that those Administrations have devolved competences by law, it makes no sense that the schemes can only be made by the Secretary of State in the UK Government. Obviously we would like Scottish independence, but in the absence of a vote on that, we are not asking for devolved Administrations to be able to overstep their devolved competences. We are merely asking for parity—for the ability of devolved Administrations to create streamlined subsidy schemes. They would still only be able to do that within their areas of devolved competence, and they would still only be able to do it within their limited financial envelopes. We are not asking for anything strange or unusual; we are not seeking some sort of power grab; it is simply to do with parity.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I understood from discussions I have had with the Minister in the past that the intention was to give the regional Administrations a say in this process so that their views could be taken on board if necessary, but the hon. Lady seems to be saying that that will not happen. Have I got it wrong, or have I got it right?
Kirsty Blackman
Some parts of the Bill give the devolved Administrations a say, but many others do not. The key part concerns the issue of interested parties, which I will explain in some detail later.
Streamlined subsidy schemes can go through a “streamlined” process rather than being made by, for instance, a local authority in order to benefit organisations. We are not asking for all granting authorities to have access to that process; we are simply asking for parity of esteem for the devolved Administrations, specifically on streamlined subsidy schemes.
Jim Shannon
The point that I was trying to make relates to farmers’ subsidies and environmental schemes, which are critically important to Northern Ireland, as they are to Scotland.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. We are asking for the agricultural references to be removed from the Bill because we do not think that this gives us, or any of the devolved Administrations, the flexibility we need. The Welsh Government have raised concerns similar to those raised by the Scottish Government, particularly in relation to legislative consent. As I said earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith will speak in more detail about agriculture in particular, so it may be worth questioning her at that stage.
Let me now turn to the issue of tax declarations and the transparency database. There is already a subsidy control database, which is rubbish. There is very little on it because a huge amount of information is missing. The Minister has made it clear that this is a preliminary database, an interim measure, and not the final database. We have had a degree of reassurance from him that the new database will be better, but the way in which the legislation is drafted—the number of exemptions, and the length of time that authorities have to upload information—causes us great concern. and was raised a number of times in Committee.
Amendment 13 would amend clause 33 in respect of a local authority or granting authority giving a subsidy in the form of a tax measure—a tax rebate or tax reduction. To give a theoretical example, if an authority says in April 2022, “We’re going to subsidise this company by not having them pay a certain kind of tax,” it does not have to put that on the database until the year after it appears on a tax declaration. It can be made in April 2022, it can appear on the tax declaration first in April 2023, and there would be no requirement to upload it to the database until April 2024, which is almost two years after the subsidy was made. By that time, an organisation that had been egregiously damaged by the subsidy would have sunk—it would have gone under.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes some very fair points, but to be fair to the Government there are requirements under clause 37(6) for the business to keep records of the subsidies received and report them. That is probably in many ways more practical. That subsidy might be given to all kinds of different subsidiaries of that particular enterprise and therefore, even if she wanted local authorities to determine what they had received in the past, it would potentially be difficult to do so by checking against the database. It makes sense to give the business some responsibility for recording that.
Kirsty Blackman
Actually, what the legislation does is to give the business a responsibility to keep the letter. It does not give the business much more responsibility, in my mind, although I will go back and have a look at the clause the hon. Gentleman points me to. I think having the subsidy on the subsidy control database would make all the difference, but if he wishes to come back in, he can.
Kevin Hollinrake
Clause 37(6) states:
“The enterprise must keep a written record detailing—
(a) that it has received a subsidy,
and
(b) the date on which it was given, and
(c) the gross value amount of the assistance.”
That to me indicates that it must keep a full record of what it has received.
Kirsty Blackman
Once again, yes, it has to keep a full record, but it does not have to show Aberdeen City Council that record. There is no requirement on the company to be transparent about that record; there is a requirement to keep it, but not to share it. Having it on the database or adding the requirement to share that record, should a granting authority ask in advance of granting a subsequent subsidy, would make the difference we are asking for.
However, that does not fix the issue in relation to transparency of data and ensuring that the database and the scheme are working properly. This was mentioned in the witness sessions. We need to know whether this is working, and we will only know if it is working if we have an idea of the subsidies being granted, even if they are below the MFA threshold.
I said I would come on to the definition of interested parties. Amendment 12 adds devolved Administrations to the list of interested parties. Again, we discussed this at some length in Committee and the Minister gave some assurances. I shall quote a couple of questions that I asked and the response that the Minister gave. I said:
“Does a devolved Administration’s interests include indirect interests?”
I also asked:
“What if a number of organisations in their jurisdiction are potentially affected by a subsidy given?”
The Minister answered:
“Yes. I would say that is a direct interest rather than an indirect interest. Public authorities, including devolved Administrations, may be interested parties.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 16 November 2021; c.308-309.]
I am glad that he gave some clarity. It is sort of because of the way the questions were asked that the Minister’s response was slightly woolly. I would very much appreciate it if, when he responds to the debate, he could make it absolutely clear from the Dispatch Box that, in cases of indirect interests, devolved Administrations are considered as interested parties.
Let us say that a subsidy was given somewhere else in the UK, or even in Scotland, and that subsidy negatively affected the chances of seven businesses in Scotland. I think that the Scottish Government should be able to bring a request to the tribunal to say that that needs to be looked at and that they believe that that is an issue. Under the definition of interested parties, it is only those people whose interests have been affected. The Scottish Government’s interests would not have been directly affected by that, but they would have been indirectly affected. I was trying to tease out from the Minister that he believed that, definitely, the Scottish Government or any of the other devolved Administrations could bring a challenge on behalf of organisations within their area. I am quite happy for that to be limited to devolved competences even. However, if they are not in the Bill as interested parties, we very much need that commitment from the Minister. If they are not in the Bill as interested parties, why is the Secretary of State included in the Bill as an interested party? If the definition is wide enough to cover all those areas—
Kevin Hollinrake
The Secretary of State is not necessarily an interested party, which is why he needs to be named in here; he might not be affected. The hon. Lady’s point about being directly or indirectly affected is covered under clause 70(7), which says that an interested party means
“a person whose interests may be affected”.
That could be directly or indirectly, surely.
Kirsty Blackman
We discussed this at length, with a lot of banter, in Committee. But I have a concern that the provision does not say “directly” or “indirectly”. It does not make that as clear as it could. A clear statement from the Minister at the Dispatch Box would give me a level of comfort. I do not think that it is the intention of the Government to exclude the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, or the Northern Ireland Assembly from making these challenges, but I think that the Bill is written in a woolly enough way that it potentially accidentally excludes them.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady has outlined the issue very well on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly. This has to be an equality issue. If it should happen that some other part of the United Kingdom affects businesses in my constituency or in Northern Ireland, equality is part of that. Should not the Minister and the Government address the issue of equality for all those reasons as well?
Kirsty Blackman
I completely agree that there is not a level of parity here. There should be because the Government recognise that the Scottish Parliament has responsibility for some things—the Government recognise that most days. They recognise that in relation to the other devolved Assemblies, too. This is not about any of those Administrations having a veto; it is simply about the right to refer this to the Competition Appeal Tribunal in order for it to be looked at. It is not about any of those authorities being able to cancel subsidies, or to veto them in any way. It is simply about being able to raise that challenge. It is something that was raised by the witnesses in the Bill’s evidence sessions, so it is not something that I have just somehow invented, or that the Welsh Government have invented, or that the Scottish Government have invented. It is a real worry for people, so the more the Minister could say on this the better.
I will not speak for too much longer. I have just one more amendment—amendment 11—to cover. There are two schedules—schedules 1 and 2—in relation to the subsidy control principles. The subsidy control principles are set in the Bill, and it is clear that they are the principles that authorities need to look to in guiding the decision making about giving subsidies. There are two schedules: one for the general principles and one for the environmental principles, which relate specifically to subsidies around energy and environmental matters.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I rise to speak to the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friends. I start by saying that there is a great deal to support about this Bill, and I think I mentioned that on Second Reading. This Bill is vitally important, not just because it is required under the terms of our leaving the EU, but because it does some very important things to how the future subsidy control regime will be applied. We have already heard that the central set of principles is crucial. The notion of pre-approval and allowing things to be done at pace to create a much less bureaucratic, much more nimble, much more predictable regime is overall hugely to be welcomed. I hope everyone will be able to sign up to that.
The Bill also means that I hope we will be able to move to a principle where we have as few exemptions and exceptions to our subsidy control regime as possible. It is essential that we have a subsidy control regime that does not allow loopholes through which—I am sure the Minister would never dream of doing such a thing—some less principled future Government might try to drive any sort of measures through that might involve either cronyism or economic distortions of any kind. It is essential that there are minimal loopholes and that the Bill covers as evenly and as predictably as possible the entire economy.
It is no accident that this country has had one of the lowest levels of public subsidies granted in recent years under the guise of the EU’s regime. For the free marketeers among us and those who care about economic efficiency and productivity, that should be a source of pride, and we should not be trying to overturn or change that in future. In fact, I made that point in the Government-commissioned competition policy review that I was recently asked to do, which has a chapter specifically on subsidy control that says that less is definitely more. It is far better to do less in the area and therefore ensure more space for companies and business leaders to compete on their organisations’ abilities and the quality of their products and services rather than on whom they know in Government and, as a result, how much rent and subsidy they can wring out of their political connections. It is essential that we remember that, adhere to it and persist with it as much as we can.
That is crucial, because the Bill done right ought to be a major piece of post-Brexit dividend that we should seek to achieve as a result of leaving the EU. If we get it right, we can have a faster, more nimble and more economically rational way of dealing with subsidies. We can keep the best of the objectivity that everyone said we had under the EU but do it in a faster, more digitally enabled and generally more modern, less bureaucratic and less covered-in-red-tape fashion. Such a post-Brexit dividend is here for the taking. It is waiting for us to pick it up off the table, provided that we can do it correctly.
My concern—this is why I tabled amendments 1 to 8 —is that while the Bill does an awful lot of that right, we may be about to make one critical error. We have already heard the points about transparency made by the SNP spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). It is all very well to pre-approve and to have a more flexible, faster and more nimble approach, but that will work only if we have an army of armchair auditors who can spot when something is going wrong and say, “Hang on a second. This is a marvellous principle, but it isn’t being adhered to in this case.” Without transparency, hon. Members, people in our constituencies and the journalists who pore over such things will not be able to do so until it is too late. In a digitising economy, speed matters, too. If it cannot be done before it is too late—or at all—companies will be driven out of business. Once all that is left is rubble, the jobs are lost and the investment is forgone, it is too late to come back two years later—or even eight months later in fast-moving sectors—and say, “We’re terribly sorry; we got this wrong.” We need to be able to move rapidly and pick up things up as soon as possible. That is why I tabled the amendments.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend makes a strong point about armchair auditors in particular. As soon as the US published all loans of $150,000 under the paycheck protection program—its version of the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme—$30 billion was paid straight back to the US Treasury on the basis that companies did not want that visibility. It was not that money was taken fraudulently—perhaps it was taken inappropriately.
John Penrose
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. For those of us who worry about the scale of subsidies, who take pride in ours being a relatively low-subsidy country and economy and who want it to stay that way—we do so because we care about competitiveness and people competing only on the basis of their ability to please their customers rather than whom they know in Government—that must be the right approach. That American example of how transparency can drive down subsidy levels is a good one. Incidentally, it would be fascinating to see how that applies to countries such as Spain, which have low thresholds for declarations and therefore high levels of declarations. We can follow that carefully.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very useful speech, and I very rarely say that in Parliament—not about him, but generally about speeches here. Does he agree that the value of his amendments is that they would increase the number of pieces of information we have, and that the Government are missing the value of predictive analytics in considering the way in which subsidies are or are not working, as that can then be applied to other areas of Government expenditure?
John Penrose
That is absolutely right. Transparency is of course about trying to improve the productivity of our economy and avoiding distortions of our economy, and of course it is also about trying to reduce cronyism, but my hon. Friend is right to say that there is a longer-term benefit in that we can then tell whether the subsidies we are offering are any good: are they actually having the effect we want them to have and can we learn from that? I am afraid there is a long and ignoble history—we can all see this and cite examples from Governments of all political types and stripes in history—of politicians just getting it wrong and not learning that extra data might very well achieve something. I am afraid the old phrase that politicians are terrible at picking winners but really good at picking losers applies here in spades, and data and objectivity are essential in pricking that bubble and avoiding that happening again.
The good news is that Ministers get it: Ministers are clear about the value of transparency. They have said so to me and others. In fact, the Minister said to me in a letter earlier in December:
“Transparency is fundamental not only to the future subsidy control regime but also to good governance more widely.”
That is absolutely right. So, the principle is clear: there is no disagreement in any part of the House that this is the right thing to do.
So, why are we not doing it? That has been covered partly in Committee, but it bears being repeated here strongly and forcefully. The EU regime which the Bill is supposed to supplant has a series of transparency declaration thresholds. Everything over half a million euros must be declared; there are thresholds too for cumulative grants, which we heard about in the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, although half a million euros is the basic threshold. This Bill, however, says that everything over half a million pounds has to be declared. Unless the exchange rate has gone completely doolally in the last 10 minutes, that is a much, or moderately, higher level than half a million euros, and as a result we will in the future be declaring fewer subsidies under this transparency regime than we were in the past, in spite of the fact that Ministers have rightly said transparency is absolutely essential and a core principle with which we all agree. We are not delivering on the central principle on which everybody agrees, and that is why I have tabled basically three groups of amendments. They do three things, some of which we have already heard about; the hon. Lady summarised them nicely, so I will not go through the detail again.
The first group addresses amounts and says, “Look, we shouldn’t just say we have to declare anything over half a million pounds; we should be much more transparent than that.” If we are really serious about trying to be world-class about this issue, let us knock three zeros off that number: let us go for £500 instead. What have we got to hide? What have we got to be scared of? Why do we not just put it all out there and let people see? That would be transformational, for the reasons I have just described.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech and making very good points. On the issue of transparency, surely it would be cheaper as well as more transparent to do exactly what he says, because when there is a digital system putting all this information together it takes more time and money and reduces the productivity of the staff involved if they have to sift through what meets a certain threshold. Why not, as my hon. Friend says, just put everything out there?
John Penrose
Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes an important point. Equally, the point about cost goes more broadly than that too. We heard about the cumulative threshold where, if a single company receives multiple different grant applications or subsidies that collectively go above £315,000 over three years, that is supposed to be declared—but how will it be declared? The company is supposed to keep the letters, but it does not necessarily have a duty to declare it. The different subsidy granting organisations, be they local authorities around the country or whatever, will not necessarily know to talk to each other and will not know for at least six months, or a year in some cases, whether someone else has made those grants.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a general presumption that there should be more transparency about people receiving money effectively from the taxpayer? We could have a strange situation where if I am being paid £600 for grass cutting for my local council, the council would publish the invoice on its database, yet if I am receiving tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money, it would not be published. Surely, that cannot be the right balance.
John Penrose
That is absolutely right. Although I appreciate that there is a technical distinction between amounts of subsidy and amounts of general local authority spend, it is a very strong comparison. If it is worthwhile recording £500 spend on anything by a local council, why are subsidies so special and why should they be different? If anything, because of the scope for potential cronyism and other concerns, we should be tougher on subsidies than on other kinds of spending. Let us at least make the thresholds the same at £500, and then there can be no concern or worry about it.
The first collection of amendments is about the amount. The second collection of amendments, about which we have already heard a bit from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, is about speed. As I have mentioned, in today’s digitising economy, publishing details of a subsidy potentially almost two years later, or even six months later, could be way too late. A company could have gone under if it had been faced by a successfully heavily subsidised competitor in its local area. Jobs will have been destroyed, wealth will have been destroyed, investment will have been forgone and, most importantly, the reputation of that local economy as a free, fair, sensible level-playing-field place to do business will have been damaged.
Clearly speed matters today, and it will matter more and more as our economy moves faster through digitisation. It makes no sense at all, therefore, to allow six months, and in some cases even longer, for those subsidies to be declared. When someone dishes out a subsidy, a letter has to be sent to the person receiving it, so in most cases they could put the subsidy on to the database at the same time—they could probably do it electronically if they had the right interface. I am suggesting that that could happen within a month; it could probably happen within days, but let us be generous and kind, and give people a bit of space.
I will expand on the point about tax-related subsidies. It is true, as we heard, that a tax-related subsidy can take almost two years to be recorded and to become transparently visible under the current proposals. I cannot see any reason why that should be the case, not just for tax-related subsidies but for anything else at all. In general, for most tax-related subsidies, we can do it immediately because we know the value with some certainty right up front. If I am giving someone a subsidy as a reduction on their business rates, I know how much the value of that subsidy is going to be on the day it comes out, so I can put that out on the subsidy database right there and right then. The same goes for most other kinds of tax-related subsidies, such as subsidies on VAT or whatever it may be.
Only for a very small number of tax-related subsidies would there be uncertainty for any length of time. As we have already heard, and I think this is absolutely right, it is perfectly possible to come up with a good estimate to begin with, and I do not think it works—it is not an adequate piece of logic—to turn around and say, “Well, because we don’t know precisely what this particular subsidy amount will be, we should not reveal it at all.” That is making the best the enemy of the good, and the trouble with that, and with saying that we are therefore not going to put anything out, is that we do not end up with the best or the good. We end up with something that is actually pretty dreadful, because we are keeping it secret for up to two years. How does that make sense when, as we have already heard, we can estimate it very accurately? In fact, in many cases these things are done in bands, and we can certainly say, at the very least, that it will be roughly in this or that band. Even if we get it wrong, we can still correct it later, and people know it is there, what it was and roughly how much it will have been. That will have allowed challenge, if necessary.
Kirsty Blackman
Specifically on the issue of uploading subsidies to databases and challenging such subsidies, the only way in which a subsidy will be overturned anyway is if the subsidy was given incorrectly—if it was against subsidy principles or was distortive in some way—so surely this has no effect on the vast majority of subsidies, except that it means they will be uploaded much more quickly. However, in the case of subsidies that are wrong, bad and going to cause problems, surely the quickest possible time is better so that we would be able to see them.
John Penrose
That is absolutely right. It is not just about whether a particular subsidy breaches those principles, but as the hon. Member rightly points out, it is also a question of whether we can then spot that a pattern of cronyism is emerging. If a particular local council was giving out grants to its mates, we could see that much faster. That may not be breaching the subsidy control principle, but you can bet your bottom dollar that people would want to know about that and that the most almighty stink would be created.
That brings me on to the final group of my three groups of amendments, which is about the ability to challenge and check individual items or individual examples of a subsidy within a broader subsidy scheme. At the moment, if someone registers a subsidy scheme under the terms of the Bill, dishes out subsidies under that subsidy scheme and then basically ignores the terms of the subsidy scheme or misapplies them in some terrible way—because of cronyism, because they are just doing a bad job, or even fraudulently—nobody, under the terms of the Bill, can challenge the individual decisions being made. That cannot be right, and it seems daft. All I am saying is that we need to be able to challenge individual examples within a broader scheme, otherwise this transparency mechanism or challenge mechanism will be fundamentally flawed.
That is the modest proposal. So far, I have not heard a single argument that unpicks the logic of that. As far as I can see, there are three Departments of Government with a dog in this fight. There is Lord Frost, who is in charge of the Brexit dividend, and he ought to be thoroughly in favour of this because of the opportunity it offers. There is the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—he was here briefly just now, and I hope he will be back later—who is of course a good free marketeer and is thoroughly committed to improving productivity, so he should be in favour of this, too. Finally, there is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the guardian of taxpayers’ money. As I have said, we should be taking pride in the fact that we are one of the least heavily subsidising economies in the developed world, and we certainly were when we were part of the EU, so I cannot see that he is going to be objecting to it either.
As I sit down, I therefore just ask the Minister to please explain the logic behind opposing any of the arguments that not just I but others have been advancing. Will please explain who on earth thinks this is a bad idea, because I cannot find them or see them and I do not think anybody knows who they are?
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I rise to speak in support of all the amendments and new clauses in the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself, but specifically new clause 1. I am aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands has already written to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs specifically on this matter.
To begin with, I will tell a little story to illustrate that the apprehensions around this issue were long-standing, even before the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 passed into being, and now appear to be fully justified, especially when we take into consideration the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination contained in that Act. In late November 2020—on St Andrew’s Day, rather ironically—in the debate on the statement on the agricultural transition plan, I asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for assurances that the Bill, as it was then, would have absolutely no impact on Scotland’s ability to set support in Scotland independent of the system chosen for England. He responded that Scotland and the other devolved authorities
“will have more freedom than ever before to design a policy that they judge to be right for them. We will set up a joint group across the UK to do market surveillance, to ensure that there is not disturbance to the internal market”.—[Official Report, 30 November 2020; Vol. 685, c. 42.]
The House will note that there was no answer to my question in that reply. However, shortly afterwards the Secretary of State reassured a fellow Conservative MP who had expressed fears on behalf of farmers in his English constituency that food production might not be supported under the new English scheme and that his farmers could
“be undercut by farmers, including in the devolved nations, who are subsidised for food production or by area, not just for stewardship”.—[Official Report, 30 November 2020; Vol. 685, c. 50.]
I wondered how he could give any such assurance if he intended keeping the UK Government’s nose out of our agricultural support choices, but I ken noo.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) has mentioned, at the heart of the problem is the broad recognition that agricultural subsidies do not fit neatly into standard subsidy control regimes. That is why agriculture has its own separate subsidy control arrangements in the EU through the common agricultural policy, and in the World Trade Organisation through the agreement on agriculture. Equally, while the trade and co-operation agreement has provided interim rules on subsidy control in the UK since Brexit, it does not apply to subsidies subject to the provisions of part 4 or annex 2 of the WTO agreement on agriculture, which relate to most agricultural subsidies.
The Scottish Government have asked the UK Government repeatedly why agriculture is included in this new regime when it is not included in most standard subsidy control regimes, but I understand that to date no satisfactory reason has been given. The Minister has responded that a majority of respondents to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy consultation thought it should be included, which seems jolly fair-minded of the Minister, we might think. On the other hand, the UK Government have so far chosen to ignore the serious concerns raised by the Scottish and Welsh Governments. The UK Government have refused to share the consultation responses with our Government, even the anonymised ones, which makes it even more difficult for Ministers and civil servants to understand the reasoning behind this decision or at least to assess whether the responses were weighted and, if so, how. The only reply that I have seen from the Government’s response to the consultation is that this hitherto accepted exemption has been removed in order to maintain a “consistent approach” and a broad sectoral scope. So it is some sort of tidying-up exercise, apparently.
Taken all together, this ratchets up what were considerable levels of concern to—I think it is fair to say—alarm not just in the Scottish and Welsh Governments and other devolved Administrations but in organisations such as the National Farmers Union of Scotland. There is less concern from the National Farmers Union of England. I wonder why that might be. It is worth reminding ourselves that the high percentage of less favoured areas in Scotland’s agricultural land—some 86%—is almost directly reversed in England, where it is only 12%. We have unique agricultural conditions and practices, so the need for a support system that recognises and understands that and takes it fully into account is vital.
Jim Shannon
I very much sympathise and agree with the argument the hon. Lady is putting forward. In Northern Ireland we have the highest quality products, we have an export market that we want to retain, and we want to retain food security as well. She referred to the National Farmers Union of Scotland; the Ulster Farmers Union is also committed to retaining that. Does she agree that the Minister should consider this very seriously, with that in mind?
Deidre Brock
Yes, very much so. I agree with the hon. Gentleman because the excellent food produced in Scotland is also to be taken into account. I hope the Minister is listening carefully to what I am saying and will take it into account when he speaks. I would be interested to hear his point of view.
There is a risk that schedule 1 will constrain Scotland’s ability to tailor future policies to the needs of Scottish agriculture. There are concerns about how the regime will work for legacy common agricultural policy schemes delivering income payments and coupled support, and doubts about whether clauses 48 and 81 will allow devolved Governments to make changes where required in order to develop and progress agricultural policies in future. Additional difficulties and potential for legal challenge are created over what could effectively be the avoidable double-banking of subsidy control schemes through the application of the new regime. The Scottish Government are also concerned about the principle that a subsidy that does not unlawfully distort international law could still be challenged, as set out in our Cabinet Secretary’s letter to the Minister,
“on the basis that it does not minimise negative effects on competition or investment in the UK which is a principle that goes beyond the minimum required under the TCA”.
Apart from those numerous concerns, the inclusion of agriculture could dramatically weaken the role of what has been the agreed common frameworks process in this area, which was put in place specifically to manage policy divergence within the UK and any impacts that that might have on the UK internal market. I have been told that no other state in the world includes agricultural payments as subsidies. While I am not entirely sure that that is the case, it is certainly highly unusual. In May, the Minister indicated to the Cabinet Secretary that he was prepared to work on bespoke solutions in the regime that would recognise the particular needs of the agricultural sector, but there has been nothing so far and, I repeat, no real explanation of how it is all supposed to actually work. Perhaps it has been filed in the “too hard” bin, along with many other devolved Administrations’ concerns, or the “can’t be bothered” bin—I am not sure.
If agriculture is left in this Bill, that could create serious problems for devolved Governments in the delivery of their own policies on food production. If the Government are serious about protecting devolution, they will abandon their plans. I urge the House to hear the concerns voiced by Scotland’s devolved Government—I am sure we are going to hear from the Welsh Government as well, and potentially from the Northern Ireland Assembly—and support the inclusion of new clause 1.
Kevin Hollinrake
I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). I will particularly address amendments 1 and 8, which are about something brutally simple: scrutiny and transparency. The Government are rightly approaching this through their obligation to meet the competition requirements of the European Union. For that purpose, £500,000 would perhaps be the right level.
I think this is about more than competition; it is also about cronyism and, potentially, fraud. My hon. Friend put it well when he talked about armchair auditors. Time and again, information about things going wrong is brought to the attention of parliamentarians like me by members of the public and members of the press. The more we give people access to such information, the more likely we are to clamp down on any suggestions of cronyism. Although most are ill-founded, it is important that we clamp down on any suggestions of cronyism and of fraud.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we should lower the threshold for reporting and registering on the database from £500,000 to £500. That seems an enormous difference, but consider what we know already. The easiest place to look is the furlough scheme and the bounce back loan scheme. The National Audit Office estimates that some £26 billion may have been lost in those coronavirus loan schemes, not all of it through fraud—some of it was through non-repayment of debt, or defaults. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of the moneys granted to businesses, which were effectively a subsidy, might have gone missing. The Government rightly put together a huge new team of people within Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, with an investment to the tune of £100 million, to try to clamp down on it by investigating the potential for fraud.
Alongside that, it would be a simple requirement for the database to include every single subsidy over £500 for the armchair auditors, the press, the public and—another important component—the whistleblowers. People within an organisation often do not know what subsidies the business may have received, but they might be able to identify the moneys as inappropriate and alert the authorities to that effect. Some 43% of all crimes are now economic crimes, and 40% of those are brought to light by whistleblowers, so it is hugely important that they have access to this information so they can scrutinise what is happening within these businesses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare asked why would we not do this? One answer might be bureaucracy and cost—we are not big believers in bureaucracy and unwanted, unneeded cost, and we rightly want to make our system simpler, not more complicated, for businesses—but the requirement to publish on the database is negligible. As others have said, businesses have to issue a letter anyway, so putting five bits of information on a database is not exhaustive. The impact assessment suggests that the total cost of doing it annually will be only £20,000 extra, which is insignificant in terms of the cost of red tape, but the benefits are huge.
As I mentioned in my earlier intervention, the US had much lower levels for reporting than we did. Our level was €500,000 for telling the EU who received benefits from the loan schemes, and it was done quite late in the day, after the loans were received by businesses. In the US it was $150,000, which effectively brought about a $30 billion return of moneys to the US Treasury because those businesses were embarrassed to be receiving the moneys inappropriately.
Another reason we are not doing this is that, when the British Business Bank looked at the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme and the bounce back loan scheme, it felt it should not report on this because it might be likely to lead to
“speculation about the Recipients’ financial position”.
I do not agree. Even if it were true, we are already putting on the database loans over €500,000. Are we saying only businesses below that level would have that problem? That is clearly not the case. A lot of businesses that received coronavirus business interruption loans over £500,000 were quoted on AIM, for example, including my own business. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, although I am no longer associated with that business in any meaningful capacity, as it was subject to a takeover earlier this year. I would have no problem at all with the loan we took under the CBILS programme being declared on a database so people could see it. The reasons we were taking it were quite obvious and I do not think it brought our financial position into question at all. Clearly, in the desperate times we were in, most people would see that we were going after desperate measures in terms of insurance policies, which the loan was to most companies. I do not see that as a valid reason for preventing the declaration to the database being completed for all subsidies down to that £500 level.
I will refer quickly to amendment 8. Allowing individual challenge to individual decisions under a subsidy scheme is another check and balance—another way to ensure money is being handed out appropriately. I think all these amendments make sense, which is why I have signed them all. To give the public, the press and Parliament access to the database is a crucial step. I do not think it would be a bureaucratic issue at all for the people responsible for it. I know we have spoken about it, but I urge the Minister to look at this again and to table such amendments at a later stage, if they are not accepted today.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lefarydd. It is interesting to hear the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) describe this Bill as part of a post-Brexit dividend. For many of us from the devolved nations, it actually bodes ill. It bodes ill in relation not just to key devolved competencies, but to questions about whether this negates the power of public procurement and, particularly, whether it undermines the levelling-up agenda. We would expect to see more principles in operation than we currently do, particularly when we compare this with the regimes we worked with and complained about, but were familiar with, under the European arrangements.
My party, Plaid Cymru, will support new clause 1, proposed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), which would exempt devolved agricultural subsidies from the subsidy control requirements. This is a vital new clause that protects our farmers and ensures that the devolved nations can continue to tailor support to local requirements and priorities. I do not think I need to persuade anybody in this Chamber that UK agriculture is highly regionalised in its type, its significance, the impact it has on its local economies and whether it requires region-specific subsidy for its needs.
I am very much aware of that for the less favoured areas, representing as I do the constituency of Dwyfor Meirionnydd, which is very much an upland area. I have whole communities watching these legislative developments with some concern. I know the farmers’ representatives from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are equally concerned about the implications of what, on its face, appears to be a fairly technocratic Bill, but none the less sets a precedent for the sort of legislation we see coming out from the trade and co-operation agreement in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.
In Wales, where more than 80% of land is used for agricultural purposes and farmers are the bedrock of our rural communities, guardians of our natural environment and protectors of our cultural identity, subsidies are vital to protecting that legacy. The latest farm business survey showed that subsidies provide on average 30% of upland cattle and sheep farms’ income. Leaving their fate to a Westminster Government set on securing questionable trade deals that boost UK GDP by 0.01% to 0.03% while at the same time sacrificing our farmers is clearly unacceptable. Equally, without this new clause, the Bill would pre-emptively tie the hands of the Welsh Government as they look to establish a new, post-EU subsidy regime. I therefore urge hon. Members across the House to support the clause to protect our farmers, as well as amendment 11 on net zero commitments.
I also extend my support to the amendments tabled by the Opposition, including amendments 19, 23 and 26, which would extend the rights of the devolved Governments. Although I believe that they could, and possibly should, be strengthened by recognising the value of the co- production of guidance, they nevertheless address somewhat some of the Bill’s governance issues. As we have seen time and again, the Government play hard and fast, and make the rules up as they go along. That is why such guarantees as are offered by the amendments are so important.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this very thoughtful debate. I do not share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) for Brexit as a whole; nevertheless, I support his comment that if this is to be one of the benefits of leaving the European Union, it is important that we get it right, especially since all the other benefits seem disappointingly slow to materialise.
I support many of the hon. Gentleman’s comments about transparency: it is important that the information is made available. He is right that it will improve the efficiency of subsidies if we can see who is getting them and understand where they are being applied. I valued the intervention from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) about what has happened in the United States, and that is an important point to consider. It is important to think about the effectiveness and efficiency of subsidies, and the use of taxpayers’ money.
This will be a new subsidy regime for the UK. The more information that is available to the widest number of people, the more we will be able to see as a country—not just the Government—what is and is not an effective subsidy. We will be able to see what has worked, what has played a role in driving investment to underdeveloped regions and what has helped to build new sectors of the economy. It is so important that that information is available. More particularly, I support the moves of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare to move the threshold to £500, because, where subsidies can distort markets, it will have a disproportionate impact on smaller businesses. That is why moving the threshold in the way that he proposes is so important.
John Penrose
May I back the hon. Lady up by saying that it is about not just smaller businesses, but local economic effects? Something that may, on a large scale, be distortive for the entire national economy may be distortive at a much smaller level for a particular city region or a particular town. I hope that she agrees with that point as well.
Sarah Olney
I absolutely do, which is why it is so important to get this level of oversight at the much smaller threshold that the hon. Gentleman is proposing. Potentially, within the gap between the £500 that he is proposing and the £500,000 that the Government are proposing, there will be a great deal of market-distorting subsidy, and it will be up to competitors who have been disadvantaged to challenge or to bring their own court cases against those subsidies. If they do not have knowledge about how they are personally being disadvantaged, what can they possibly do about it? That is why that point is so important.
My new clause 2 is about climate change. I welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) about the importance of this matter in her excellent opening speech. There are the seven principles against which the subsidies will be assessed, and also the nine energy and environmental principles. What I am disappointed about is that they do not add up to a broader commitment to using public money to fight climate change. I can only amplify what the hon. Lady said about it being our key public challenge at this time, covid notwithstanding.
The Liberal Democrats would have welcomed the opportunity to put the transition to net zero at the heart of the UK’s subsidy regime, and for the Government to have used every tool at their disposal to make the transition as swiftly and painlessly as possible, and we can see how public subsidies can help to achieve that.
New clause 2 provides for an annual report to Parliament detailing the climate change impacts of subsidies granted that year. This would have been an important mechanism for reviewing the extent to which subsidies are being used to stimulate or to de-risk investment in the green economy. We look to the private sector to drive much of the innovation that we need to see and to create the consumer markets for our net zero future, but the Government must do all they can to encourage the private sector to prioritise reducing emissions alongside creating economic value.
Public subsidies are an important part of the levers available, and taxpayers need to see that they are being used effectively. Let us take, for example, the nine environmental and energy principles. In the past few months, we have seen a tremendous concern about our energy sector, and it is easy to imagine a scenario where subsidies are being granted to improve energy resilience and energy supply. Such goals might make sense in the short term as they are in line with the principles, but when we are making short-term decisions about subsidy use, it is really important that we step back and look at the longer-term impact of some of those decisions. We need to take the opportunity every year to make sure that, regardless of the short-term decisions that sometimes need to be made, we are nevertheless continuing along the path towards net zero—the challenge that the Government have set for themselves. To have that separate net zero/climate change consideration of the total use of all of our subsidies would be an important check for the Government to make sure that they are progressing towards net zero in the way that they should
In short, this Bill would have been much improved by enabling greater scrutiny of the subsidies granted. I regret that the Government are not doing more to enable that.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow some powerful speeches on Report tonight. I share the frustration of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) that we could well have moved forward with some of the issues we debated in Committee with some amendments brought forward by the Government. Some of the robust debate we had in Committee led to looking at how we could address those issues more quickly. I acknowledge the contributions from the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). I will be talking about their amendments later in my speech, but we have discussed at length transparency and the ways in which we need to reform this regime in order for it to be the most effective it can be. I wish to make a brief remark about new clause 1 before carrying on further. I hear the concerns raised by the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), because they are important, particularly in relation to legacy subsidies in agriculture, as well as future subsidies. The Minister will need to make sure that he can respond clearly to the concerns that have been raised, and we will certainly be listening closely on that.
It is a pleasure to speak to our amendments—new clause 3, on post-award referrals, and amendments 15 to 27. I will also speak in support of similar and, in some cases, identical amendments to those tabled by Labour in Committee, which I was pleased to see have been influential in colleagues’ consideration of the Bill. I refer in particular to amendments 1 to 8, which were tabled by the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare and for Thirsk and Malton, and amendments 10 and 12, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. There are only slight differences from our position in Committee, and I am sure that today’s debate will also help consideration of the Bill in the other place. Amendments 13 and 14 are similar to amendments 2 and 7, and are consistent with our significant concerns on transparency and accountability, which we raised in Committee. New clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), is also consistent with the position on net zero leadership that we set out on Second Reading and in Committee. We are not actively supporting two amendments—we are more neutral on them: amendment 11, which has similar intentions and principles but is slightly weaker than our amendment 16 and which runs the risk of being unclear for local authorities to implement; and amendment 9, where we understand the intention to broaden what the Competition and Markets Authority reports on. However, arguably it would not have the information on all subsidies, as most would not be notified to it, so this provision could be impractical and create a significant burden. However, in Committee we also provided suggestions on how the CMA’s annual report could be strengthened and what areas it could report on. We had a considerable debate on that, including in respect of the CMA reporting on where it had identified non-compliance with the principles and examining the geographical spread of subsidies that had been notified to it.
Labour recognises the need for this legislation, which establishes the framework for the UK’s post-Brexit subsidy control regime. It indeed allows for quicker subsidies to be granted to businesses, which we support. We recognise that a system of subsidy control is important to ensure that public funds are made available to businesses, but with appropriate safeguards in place. Where we departed from the Scottish National party in Committee is that we also believe that the Bill is necessary to protect the UK’s internal market. We are speaking to our amendments today on two main strategic areas: the purpose of subsidies; and the way in which the new regime will operate. I will deal first with the purpose and the use of subsidies. Subsidies and their controls should be an integral part of a strong, long-term industrial strategy, promoting growth and supporting industry, jobs and prosperity across the country. We want to see our foundation industries such as steel supported, and we want to see a plan for how we can buy, make and sell more in Britain.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It was an honour and pleasure to serve with my hon. Friend on the Bill Committee. Does she agree that the strategic purpose of a Bill such as this must be about supporting areas of greater economic deprivation and that therefore there is a glaring hole at the middle of this Bill, which is that it does not have that clear, proactive strategic purpose?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for his contributions in Committee and for that very important point, which I will come on to. We know that the assisted areas map is not part of the UK’s regime, but there has to be a way to deal with the principle of that, which is how to ensure resources are targeted to the areas where they are most needed.
John Penrose
I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady. I am sure everybody here would agree with the principle of trying to level up, particularly in parts of the UK outside London and the south-east, but can she address the point I was making about politicians having a long and really pretty awful record in picking losers? How does she think that, under her proposal, things are going to be different this time?
Seema Malhotra
I do not think it is about us picking losers or winners at all. This is about us using the data, understanding where there are areas of greatest need and having that as part of a data-led levelling-up agenda. Given that the Government have created a specific Department for levelling up, Labour is surprised that that mandate is not clear and that the hon. Gentleman does not have the answers he needs to have a framework that gives confidence that we are applying resources to areas of greatest need. To be frank, the Government’s record on that is not very strong. The Bill should be explicit that supporting areas of deprivation should fall squarely within the subsidy control principles.
On improving the way the new regime will operate, there is a serious lack of transparency in the Bill on how public money is spent and how value for money can be assessed.
Kevin Hollinrake
Does the hon. Lady not agree that the problem with amendment 16—the net zero amendment —is judging what is consistent with the net zero commitments? I have a Westminster Hall debate tomorrow —at 4 o’clock if anybody has nothing better to do and wants to tune in. On greenwashing, for example, it is incredibly difficult to ascertain what complies with net zero when there is so much noise around this. We need to improve in that area. Is this not really a charter for lawyers to take these subsidies to court time and again? Is not that the problem with her amendment?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. We have agreed with many of his amendments. What he has just said actually lends even greater weight to wanting to make sure that that is a consideration and that we have the resources to support that. Perhaps he will talk to those on his own Treasury Bench about this, because we would have hoped that by now there would be a clearer road map for how the country is supposed to move forward to achieving our net zero commitments. He will know as well as I do that many small businesses have been crying out for a road map to net zero to know what can make the most difference, how to assess it and how to look at whether they have a decarbonisation strategy that is fit for purpose. So I think he is lending weight to our argument that we need something in the legislation to help drive the processes behind that. People want answers and want to know they are doing the right thing and making the right investments on our road map to net zero.
I was referring to the serious lack of transparency in the Bill around how public money is spent and value for money can be assessed. There is no requirement to report subsidies below £315,000 over three years. An unlimited number—an unlimited number—of subsidies up to £500,000 could be made under a scheme and not one would need to be reported, as long as the scheme itself apparently is reported. That is not good enough. The argument that this is in order to be consistent with the EU fall because the thresholds in the EU state aid regime were in the context of a very different regime; they were in the context of a scheme of pre-notification, where scrutiny took place before the allocation of the subsidy, not a permissive regime that challenges subsidies after they have been granted. In that context, we must think differently about what we seek to import; we are not importing the whole environment around how those decisions were made in the past.
The Minister has previously stated that we are in a position to be able to change those thresholds—it is not a matter of can’t; it is a matter of won’t. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) said very cleverly: if this is so obvious and the Minister agrees with transparency, why are we not doing it?
During covid, we have seen Ministers wasting money on crony personal protective equipment contracts. I could spend my entire speech talking about this, but my main point is that that would have remained hidden from the public and from Parliament without ongoing freedom of information requests. Transparency on public expenditure—who is paying out, how much is being given, who it is going to and what it is being used for— are basic questions that we should know answers to as a matter of routine on subsidies being paid by our Governments, local authorities or other public authorities. Greater transparency, not less, should underpin the system of self-assessment by public authorities that sits at the heart of the Bill and our responsibility to the taxpayer.
The Centre for Public Data has made it clear that greater transparency would help ensure the honesty, consistency and efficiency of the system. It is also essential that interested parties—be they competitors, other public authorities or groups acting in the public interest—are able to challenge subsidies that they believe are distortive or unfair.
On the subsidy database, we support amendments 1 to 8 on transparency and reducing the threshold for the requirement to report on the database. This includes subsidies made under a scheme referred to in amendment 1. As the Bill stands, subsidies made under a scheme with a value of less than £500,000 do not have to be entered on to the database. There is no convincing reason for that, and it is in the public interest that all subsidies under a scheme be published. Worse still, a scheme can be registered with little information so that there will be no overall transparency for a scheme under which millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money could be spent without scrutiny.
Amendment 8 in the names of the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare and for Thirsk and Malton amends clause 70, which currently provides that, where a subsidy is made under a scheme, the decision to grant an individual subsidy cannot be reviewed. The amendment suggests that the response given by the Minister in Committee was not reassuring enough.
This set of amendments also reduces the timeframes in which subsidies must be entered on to the transparency database and the timeframes in which any modifications must be uploaded. Members will be aware that the Bill currently requires subsidies or schemes to be entered on to the database within six months of being made or within one year in the case of a tax measure. We argued in Committee that there was a need to reduce those timeframes. Having longer makes it more likely to result in an incomplete or inaccurate entry, because officials may leave or records may be lost. We heard evidence from Jonathan Branton, a legal expert in the area, who said,
“I have yet to hear a…persuasive case for why you need that long to publish…an award.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 58, Q79.]
Amendments 21 and 22 were intended to bring all services of public economic interest subsidies with a value of more than £500 into the scope of transparency requirements. We do not understand why such subsidies—those up to £14.5 million or all those in the case of hospital care, adult social care and certain public transportation services—should be excluded from transparency requirements. With respect to amendment 6, we firmly support the need for the date of the subsidy to be entered on to the database. There should be no ambiguity about the day that the clock starts to tick for the period in which a challenge can be brought.
If the Minister wants to try to argue that greater transparency would lead to higher costs and more red tape for public authorities, that does not hold up to scrutiny either, because they have that information and they are used to reporting their expenditure above £500. That point was made on Second Reading as well by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare. When giving evidence in Committee, Dr Roger Barker of the Institute of Directors said that
“there should be transparency at every level of subsidy”.––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 37, Q48.]
A transparent system is important, but so is the quality of the data contained in it. That is why we tabled amendment 20, which would require the Secretary of State to ensure that the subsidy database is subject to routine audit to verify the accuracy and completeness of entries. That would incentivise complete and accurate reporting and provide a mechanism for putting errors right.
In Committee, we heard clear evidence that the database in its current form contains significant inaccuracies and gaps in the data entered. Expert witnesses suggested that not all subsidies were being entered, as just 501 subsidies were recorded in the best part of 10 months. Of those entries that had been recorded, more than half had a zero or nil value, so either the database is not fit for purpose or the entry of data by public authorities has not been up to scratch—or both.
If the database is not subject to any oversight or control, and if inaccurate or incomplete information entered on to it is not checked, poor-quality information is likely to lead to misguided legal challenges or to harmful subsidies failing to be addressed. We want to be constructive on this point, which is why the amendment is drafted in a way that permits the Secretary of State to decide who should undertake the audits and how they can be done most effectively.
On devolution, this is not a fair four-nations Bill. As it stands, regulations and guidance can be developed without seeking the consent of the devolved Administrations; only the Secretary of State can call for subsidies to be assessed by the CMA; and there are no requirements for the devolved Administrations to be represented on the CMA’s new subsidy advice unit. That is important because we need a system that commands the confidence of all four nations.
The devolved Administrations should be given a genuine voice in developing and implementing the new regime. The Minister’s response in Committee to our concerns and those of the devolved Administrations was that he had had a number of meetings with the devolved Administrations and would keep talking to them. I would be grateful if he could provide an update on those discussions.
Amendments 23 to 25 would provide Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Ministers with the power to call in subsidies or schemes under clause 55. Currently, only the Secretary of State has the power to issue a call-in direction, triggering a report to the CMA. On that basis, the CMA’s reports are not binding on a public authority. The harm of extending the call-in power to the devolved nations is not clear to us. Why is the Secretary of State empowered to call in Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish subsidies that may damage economic interests in England but the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish leaders cannot call in subsidies that they believe can cause economic harm in their nations?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I thank hon. Members across the House for the informed debate on the Bill and will try my best to respond to their comments in the few moments that I have.
A number of amendments have been tabled on the topic of transparency, which I take really seriously. My Department is working on a programme of improvements for the subsidy database. To name just two examples, we are resolving the technical glitch that meant that subsidies were uploaded with a zero value. Additionally, we are developing an update to add the data for upload to the information published on the database. Officials will actively look at further improvements over the coming months and in advance of the new regime coming in.
The Government intend to review again the evidence collected as part of the consultation alongside that provided by witnesses to the Committee about the transparency provisions. We will reflect carefully on the points raised so far and engage further on our findings with parliamentarians in both Houses as the Bill progresses. I know the strength of feeling in the House on this matter, and we will consider carefully what further action we could take to address those concerns if they come back in the Lords.
I start with the amendments that would reduce the threshold at which subsidies are uploaded. The transparency provisions seek to minimise the administrative burdens and costs to public authorities while ensuring that information is available on subsidies that must meet the substantive subsidy control requirements. That is an important tool to aid interested parties to challenge potentially harmful subsidies. However, the amendments would create an additional administrative burden for public authorities, including small local authorities. Paradoxically, they could make it harder to identify in the database the most potentially harmful subsidies that are eligible to be challenged in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Many small subsidies will also be publicly available via other transparency tools. Such data may not be perfectly formatted, but it does go far wider than subsidies.
In relation to services of public economic interest, there was broad support from consultation respondents for the application of different transparency measures. The contracts must meet the specific requirements set out in clause 29. That is why the database requirements are different for those subsidies.
John Penrose
May I just caution my hon. Friend? I think the paraphrase of his argument about the size of the subsidy database is that big databases are less transparent than small ones. That is clearly bonkers and not right, and I do not think it stands up to any scrutiny. He may be arguing that that is okay because other databases will have the information and that it can all be compared and contrasted, but that works only if the data is in a common format that allows for mutual searching, and there is no such plan for that. May I gently caution him about pushing that argument too far? I do not think it will stand much strain in the Lords.
Paul Scully
All I would say is that it is easy to hide something in plain sight, but the subsidy transparency database is being developed under the Cabinet Office’s standard system for all Government databases. I have talked before about interoperability, and we would expect to be able to link those databases and to scrape them in the future.
Dr Poulter
I echo the transparency concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). I welcome the Minister’s commitment to allowing the other place to look at this area, but, to reassure some of us, will he please outline the transparency tools that already exist?
Paul Scully
I am not sure in terms of transparency tools. What I am saying is that we will ensure that the database is eventually interoperable with other databases. We clearly want the subsidy database to have enough easily accessible, searchable fields to allow people to make meaningful use of the data.
I turn to the amendments that seek to reduce the time period to upload subsidies to the database for both tax and non-tax subsidies to one month. The risk of a deadline as short as a month is that public authorities are more likely to make mistakes. Although it is possible to correct data, that creates an additional administrative burden for public authorities. Inaccurate or otherwise poor data would also undermine public confidence in the database.
A short deadline is particularly challenging for tax subsidies, which are often calculated from the information provided in a tax declaration, which the beneficiary is entitled to change within the 12 months following its due date. That is true, for example, of the Government’s research and development subsidy scheme for small and medium-sized enterprises, where quarterly uploads to the database are planned for the hundreds of subsidies above £500,000 that are awarded every year. Significantly more resource would be required to upload to the database more frequently and to make corrections to previous uploads as required. I note the proposal to require an initial upload of a tax subsidy as an estimate. However, I believe that more changes and revisions to the database would cause confusion.
On auditing the database, I share hon. Members’ desire to make the database as accurate as possible, and my Department is already taking steps to improve data quality. However, a new obligation to subject the database to a routine audit is unnecessary because the system already incentivises accurate entries. Public authorities may not have fulfilled their obligation to make an entry on the database if that entry is not accurate, so the limitation period for a challenge would not start until a correct entry was made. Public authorities must therefore take responsibility for their own data. Ultimately, it would not be a good use of taxpayers’ money to have central Government officials independently verifying every piece of information provided by public authorities. As for the requirement to include the subsidy upload date in the list of requirements for the database that may be included in regulations, I entirely agree that that is useful data. As I have said, we are currently developing an update so that that is part of the publicly available information on the database.
Let me now deal with amendments that raise important points about the nature of the subsidy control regime, and especially about the role of the subsidy advice unit. The SAU’s job is to be an impartial adviser in respect of the most potentially harmful subsidies and schemes. The regime places clear duties on public authorities that are awarding subsidies. It will be for those authorities to assess whether they are compliant with the regime. That is not the SAU’s job. It will only review public authorities’ assessments in a relatively small number of cases that have the potential to be the most distortive. New clause 3 would require the SAU to monitor and investigate subsidy activity, and amendment 9 would require it to list all subsidies annually, whatever their size, along with an assessment of their compliance. Both would involve a fundamental shift in the unit’s role, to an intrusive, investigatory one.
I fully expect that there will be high levels of compliance with the regime, and that public authorities will take their statutory duties seriously. Of course, failure to fulfil these duties would expose public authorities to legal challenge, and would create unnecessary uncertainty for beneficiaries. Members will appreciate the resource burden that monitoring and assessing all subsidies would involve, and will recognise that not only is it entirely disproportionate to the risks that the amendments seek to address, but it would distract from the SAU’s proper focus.
Amendment 26 would allow the CMA chair to make appointments to the subsidy advice unit to bring greater experience in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The CMA’s staffing is an internal matter, but I note that job vacancies for the new unit are currently being advertised in all four capitals of the UK.
Amendment 8 proposes that subsidies granted under schemes should be open to challenge in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Schemes represent an important efficiency for public authorities. They allow similar or identical subsidies to be given on the basis of a single, comprehensive assessment against the principles. A scheme should not be made unless the public authority believes that the subsidies given under it will be consistent with the principles. It would therefore be unnecessary for subsidies granted under schemes to be eligible for review by the tribunal. However, if there were a question as to whether a subsidy given under a scheme really met the terms of the scheme, that subsidy could be challenged in the tribunal on the basis that it should be treated as a stand-alone subsidy.
Let me deal next with the amendments relating to the role of the devolved administrations. The UK Government have engaged regularly with the DAs on the design of a UK-wide subsidy control regime, and we will continue to listen carefully to their views. None the less, it is important to reiterate that subsidy control is a matter reserved to this Parliament. That is because we need a UK-wide regime to prevent distortions harmful to competition, and to facilitate compliance with our international obligations. I fundamentally believe that the amendments are inappropriate for a reserved policy matter. The Secretary of State will act in the interests of all parts of the UK.
Amendment 12 concerns who can challenge a subsidy decision. I can clarify that: the devolved administrations, or local authorities, would generally be able to apply for the review of a subsidy when people in the areas for which they are responsible might be adversely affected by it, but there is no reason for the DAs to be able to challenge subsidies that have only a tenuous connection with the interests of people in those areas.
Amendment 10 would allow the devolved administrations to create streamlined subsidy schemes. All public authorities in the UK will be able to use such schemes, but they will function best when they apply throughout the UK. In any case, all public authorities will be free to create subsidy schemes for their own purposes, and primary public authorities, such as the DAs, will be able to create schemes for the use of local authorities and other public bodies within their remit. As for amendment 27, the Bill already requires the Secretary of State to consult such persons as they consider appropriate before issuing any guidance. Attaching a formal consent mechanism to this clause risks delaying the issuing and updating of guidance.
New clause 1 would exempt agricultural subsidies and schemes within the scope of the World Trade Organisation agreement on agriculture from the requirements of the new domestic regime. Having agriculture covered by the same single, coherent framework as other sectors will protect competition and investment within agriculture, while securing consistency for public authorities and subsidy recipients. The Bill’s design ensures that public authorities are empowered to give subsidies that best fit their local needs, whether that means supporting innovation in pharmaceuticals or innovation in farming. I therefore do not agree that agriculture should be exempt from the regime.
Let me now turn to the amendments dealing with net zero.
New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to report annually on the impact of all subsidies granted in the previous year on the environment and climate change. This would represent a significant administrative burden, not least on smaller public authorities, and would discourage them from granting subsidies in the first place. There are also long-standing existing obligations on public authorities to collect this information in specific circumstances, and therefore this amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment 11 would add another principle to schedule 1 centred on net zero, but net zero is not inherent to all subsidies. A great number of subsidies will not have a meaningful impact on the UK’s emissions. A requirement for public authorities to assess all subsidies against net zero is therefore disproportionate.
Amendment 16 would add an explicit net zero test to the balancing test principle in schedule 1. The terms of the balancing test are not limited to negative effects on trade or investment within the UK, or to international trade and investment, so this amendment is also unnecessary.
Finally, on levelling up, amendment 18 would establish that streamlined subsidy schemes can be made for the purpose of supporting areas of deprivation. The Bill allows the Government to create streamlined subsidies for any purpose, not least for levelling up, so this amendment is unnecessary, but I certainly commit to ensuring that streamlined subsidy schemes collectively support public authorities in delivering levelling-up objectives.
The first subsidy control principle specifies that subsidies should pursue a policy objective that either remedies a market failure or addresses an equity rationale. Clearly, relative economic deprivation would fall into that category, so these amendments are unnecessary.
I am grateful for the constructive engagement of hon. Members on both sides of the House, but I cannot accept the amendments tabled for this debate. Consequently, I ask hon. Members not to press them.
Finally, I thank the team that prepared the Bill: Jamie Lucas, Jess Blakely, Carmen Suarez, Jane Woolley, George Kokkinos, Hannah Swindell, Sam Naylor, Joe Smith, Matilda Curtis, Dharmesh Jadavji, Steve Huntington, Kerry Mattingly, Anthony McDonough, Tim Beaver, Christian Garrard and Josephine Sherwood.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for his leadership and diligence in steering the Bill through this House. I recognise the contribution of all the officials in my Department whose outstanding work has advanced us to this point. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues for all the work you have done. I extend my thanks to all the House staff who have made sure that everything has gone as one might expect.
This Bill is a hugely important piece of legislation. It establishes a subsidy control system that has been designed by and for the UK. It demonstrates the Government’s clear commitment to seize the opportunities arising from Brexit. For the first time, the decision on whether to grant a subsidy will fall to the granting authority itself. At the heart of the regime is a set of clear and proportionate principles that will be underpinned by guidance.
Local authorities, public bodies and the devolved Administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast will be empowered to decide if they can issue taxpayer-funded subsidies by acting consistently with the principles outlined in the legislation. That includes a principle specifically designed to minimise distortions to UK competition and investment. The new regime will help to unlock potential so that all areas of the UK feel the benefits of targeted subsidies. That includes investment in skills, infrastructure, new technologies, and research and development.
With agreement, in Committee, the Government made some technical changes to the provisions to provide clarity in certain areas. Those included ensuring that the transparency requirements apply to subsidies under legacy schemes subject to certain exemptions and that the content of the CMA’s post-award report is consistent with that of its pre-award report.
There has been a thorough debate, including today, about specific elements of the regime. I welcome the recognition on both sides of the House of the need for the Bill. The new subsidy control regime will ensure that the UK maintains a competitive free market economy, which is fundamental to our national prosperity, while protecting the interests of the British taxpayer. The debate will continue through the remaining stages of the Bill as it passes to the other place and we will of course be mindful and attentive to that continuing debate. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a privilege to come to the Dispatch Box for the first time as the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. This is an important Bill. On the face of it, it is a technical matter, as our exit from the European Union and single market means that a replacement for the former state aid rules is a legal and practical necessity. However, the debate we have had about how the new regime will be used shows that it is much more important than that.
I thank all hon. Members who have worked on the Bill, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for their work in Committee. I repeat the Secretary of State’s thanks to all the Clerks and ministerial officials for getting it ready.
The current Government’s economic record sadly combines the worst of everything. Our long-term growth forecasts are low, our taxes are high, our productivity is appalling, inflation is growing and our trade is shrinking. In short, the Conservative Government have created a high-tax, low-growth economy, so the country needs a plan for growth if we are to generate the living standards and public services that the British people rightly expect. Therefore, how the powers and responsibilities that are contained in the Bill will be used is of major interest to us all.
I want to see some ambition from the Government—not just big talk, but real delivery. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have tried to tease out the outlines of their strategy, or some indication of their plans, but we are none the wiser, mainly because they do not seem to know what they want to do. For any industrial policy to be successful, its focus must be the long term and its fundamental objectives should be cross party to give industry and firms the reassurance that they need to invest for the future.
This Government cannot even agree with what former Conservative Governments proposed and adopted as policy just a few years ago. I have still heard no clear reason from them as to why the previous industrial strategy and bodies such as the Industrial Strategy Council have been abolished. It smacks of the fundamental short-termism and lack of seriousness that infects the whole Government. That matters because for the powers contained in the Bill to work, they have to be a part of a coherent strategy. I do not believe that we have that.
I do not believe in corporate welfare; it is not the Government’s job to bail out firms that are not viable or to distort fair competition in markets. But I do believe that there is a huge role for the Government in partnering with industry to meet our national objectives, particularly on net zero. A good example of where that support is needed is our energy-intensive sector, which has a significant carbon footprint domestically but which compares favourably to the same industries in other countries when international comparisons are made. I want to see from the Government a coherent and effective strategy to use the powers in this Bill to support these industries because, without that, all we will do is offshore our emissions by making these sectors uncompetitive. At present, we have a Government who are willing to intervene, but whose approach is best described as completely scattergun. I know some Conservative Members are converts to economic intervention, but they have skipped the part where that intervention needs to be driven by purpose, rather than short-term political expediency. Michael Heseltine put it best when he said that the Government appear to have “no coherent approach” and the Prime Minister is just
“lurching from crisis to crisis.”
That is harsh criticism, but it is fair.
In many ways we will not be able to judge the success or not of this legislation until we have learnt more about how the Government intend to use it. Quite simply, the Government must do better. If they had taken our amendments, and those of other colleagues here today, on board, that would have substantially improved what we are being presented with on Third Reading. It would have given us greater transparency to show where public money is going and a commitment that any subsidies help the UK achieve the net zero targets, and ensured that the nations and regions have the powers they need to make the new regime a success. It is a real regret that those amendments are not part of the Bill, but I hope members in the other place will take these arguments up.
To return to my opening remarks, although the Bill is not the one we would have proposed, it is clearly a necessity. We will therefore not be opposing it on Third Reading. However, in the months and years ahead, it will only have meaning for the British people if it is combined with the kind dynamic and coherent policy agenda that so far has eluded this Government at every level.
Kirsty Blackman
I want to start with a few thanks. I thank staff member Dr Jonathan Kiehlmann and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) for their assistance on the Bill. I also thank—this shows the seriousness with which Scotland treats this—Cabinet Secretaries Kate Forbes, Ivan McKee and Mairi Gougeon, who have all taken an interest in the Bill and in trying to improve it. We recognise that it is an incredibly important regime and we have significant concerns about it. I wish briefly to comment on amendment 19, which we voted for. We did so not because it was perfect but because it would have made the Bill marginally better than it is currently. So the amendment is not something we would necessarily back wholeheartedly, but it is better than the current Bill as drafted. I thought it would be best to make that clear.
The three major concerns we continue to have about the Bill relate to the inclusion of agriculture. Agriculture is not included in subsidy control regimes elsewhere and I do not believe we have heard enough justification from the Minister or the Secretary of State to understand why they have chosen to include agriculture in this scheme. We believe that the scheme is not transparent enough. Indeed, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) tabled a number of amendments to that effect, as did a number of other colleagues across the House. There are significant concerns about the transparency of the subsidy control database in particular, but that also applies to the subsidy regime more widely. I hope that the Government will take these things into account and will consider them as the Bill moves on to further consideration in the other place.
The last issue we have is about climate change, which should form part of the key principles. I know that the principles can be updated, including by future Governments, but, for the Bill to stand the test of time, reaching our net zero targets should have been put at its front and centre. I appreciate the Opposition tabling an amendment to that effect. The Liberal Democrats did the same, as did we. This is so important and we feel that the Minister and the Secretary of State are abdicating some responsibility on that.
Lastly, I wish to thank the Minister for his clarification in relation to interested parties. I very much appreciate him saying what he said at the Dispatch Box on the role of devolved Administrations when it comes to interested parties. That will make a difference to the operation of the Bill and I appreciate that he did that.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am very pleased that there have been as many contributions as there have been. I look forward to taking the Bill forward, as does my hon. Friend the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 4, 5 and 6 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
ROAD TRAFFIC
That the draft Electric Vehicles (Smart Charge Points) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 28 October, be approved.
EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION (CUSTOMS)
That the draft Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2021,which were laid before this House on 15 November, be approved.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
That the draft Consumer Scotland Act 2020 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2022, which was laid before this House on 8 November, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
National Lost Trawlermen’s Memorial Day
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for providing me with the opportunity to speak on this subject, which is incredibly close to my heart, and means a great deal to the people of Hull and many others across the country.
For the past 32 years, Hull has come together, with a date now fixed—the last Sunday in January—to remember and commemorate the more than 6,000 trawlermen of our city who lost their lives at sea. Although the covid-19 pandemic may have moved the annual service online last year, I have no doubt that Lost Trawlermen’s Day will, as soon as possible, return to its rightful place in the city and our civic life.
As someone who was born and bred in Hull, it is a source of immense pride, every year, that hundreds of people brave the January wind and cold on the banks of the Humber to attend the service to the lost trawlermen—that is how much it means to the people of our city.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for raising this today. As the widow of a trawlerman, who lost her husband at sea, I genuinely believe that what he is asking for today is something that we should all support. I know that my family would really like to see a day when they can celebrate —my children celebrate their father and I my late husband. There are many fishermen’s wives out there who do not have anything other than a memory because they did not even have their husbands recovered. My friend has raised this but I genuinely believe that it has cross-party support. On these Conservative Benches, we believe as well that we should be doing this.
Karl Turner
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. She and I were elected together in 2010 and I remember that terrible event. She paid tribute to me, but may I pay tribute to her for what she has just said in this important debate?
People come together in the city. They do that because, at one time, Hull was the largest and most successful fishing port in the world and the city’s development was closely tied to the industry. That success came at a terrible human cost. The price of fish at market may have gone up and down but, at least until recent years, it was always high in terms of lives lost at sea. I think I am right in saying that it was Walter Scott who wrote, over two centuries ago:
“It’s not fish you’re buying, it’s men’s lives.”
Sadly, that was very true.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward and pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her heartfelt thoughts.
I represent Portavogie, the second largest fishing village in Northern Ireland and I have known in my lifetime many a brave man lost at sea. Indeed, just last week, my office had contact with a widow who lost her husband at sea in 1986—35 years ago—and she still mourns him today. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the widows and the children of these men will be warmed in the knowledge that their loved ones have not been forgotten by us in this House tonight?
Karl Turner
I do agree, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, because I know he is incredibly proud of the industry in his area and campaigns tirelessly for the interests of those who earn their living fishing at sea.
Fishing was and is a hard, tough and unimaginably dangerous job. In the mid-20th century, workers in the fishing industry were four times as likely to be killed as those in the UK’s next most lethal profession, underground coalmining.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because this is a proposition that I am sure will have support in coastal and island communities right around the country. I was brought up on Islay, with a population of 3,500 people, and even of those who were at school with me I can count no fewer than six who have lost their lives in the industry. The real benefit that would come from what he proposes is not just that it would be an act of remembrance but, in its own small way, it would help to improve the culture within the industry so that the many lives that were lost needlessly would not be lost in future generations.
Karl Turner
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; the fact that he speaks as he does adds incredibly strong support to the argument. I think I am right in saying, having spoken briefly with the Minister prior to the debate, that to some extent we are pushing at an open door.
Fishing in Hull and the rest of the UK was not only deadly during peacetime. Trawlermen were on the frontline of both world wars, not only braving enemy action to keep those at home supplied with vital food when rationing tightened belts, but playing an active role in minesweeping, U-boat detection and saving lives at sea. At the height of the first world war, fishing trawlers on active service were lost at the rate of one every other week, with an average of half of all crew lost in every single incident. The contribution of fishing communities to the wider conflict has been woefully under-recognised, in my respectful view, and that must be addressed.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward. As we both know, Grimsby and Hull have had a healthy competition over the years, because Grimsby is well-known as the world’s premier fishing port. On the point about the first and second world wars, however, does he agree that our minesweeping, our anti-submarine work, our convoy work and our armed trawling work has not been very well publicised, and that the 66,000 men around the UK who joined the Royal Naval Patrol Service helped to save the UK and to keep it fed, since fish was the only food that was not rationed at the time?
Karl Turner
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, who makes the point better than me, I suspect, and very passionately; I spotted the Minister listening intently while she spoke.
While fishermen are among those commemorated on the Tower Hill memorial in London, their relative absence from the wider story of this country’s war effort should be further evidence of the need for a National Lost Trawlermen’s Memorial Day. We mark Lost Trawlermen’s Day in Hull on the last Sunday in January, deliberately and for a significant reason: with high winds and stormy seas, it was always a perilous time for Hull’s fishing fleet, with many losses occurring at that time of year.
However, January 1968 marked one of the darkest periods in our city’s history, the triple trawler tragedy, when the St Romanus, the Kingston Peridot and the Ross Cleveland all sank within weeks of each other, with the loss of 58 lives. Only one man survived. The devastating blow dealt to Hull’s tight-knit fishing community was a call to arms, and the headscarf revolutionaries, led by Lillian “Big Lil” Bilocca, achieved more for safety at sea in a few days than others had achieved in many decades. Dr Brian Lavery paid tribute to her in his book.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He talks of the triple tragedy, and I am old enough to remember the hush of cold silence over Grimsby when a trawler went missing. I remember regularly going down to Grimsby docks with my father, who worked on the docks all his working life. I went on the trawlers and saw how little protection they offered to the trawlermen, so I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on achieving not only cross-party support but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) said, cross-Humber support, which is not always quite so obvious.
Karl Turner
The hon. Gentleman is of course right that he and I and colleagues from across the Humber do not always agree, but I am grateful that we do on this point.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is not just cross-Humber, as there is cross-Tamar support from Devon and Cornwall MPs. In Plymouth we have lost two trawlerman in recent years: one on the Solstice and one on the Laura Jane. In remembering them as individuals and the risks they take in going to sea, may I ask my hon. Friend to use this opportunity to talk about the need to invest in improved safety such as the further roll-out of the Plymouth life jacket scheme? A personal locator beacon is included on the life jackets, which takes the search out of “search and rescue” if a person goes overboard.
Karl Turner
I thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on this issue over the past couple of years as shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He is right, of course, and we should extend the scheme further not just to those most at risk but across the industry and to all fishers, because these relatively cost-effective, inexpensive things can save lives.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this Adjournment debate. Further to what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, we can greatly improve the safety of our boats. There will always be risks at sea, but we can minimise those risks by introducing better safety and more up-to-date boats. I would like to see us invest even more in fishing and fishing boats so that we can see our fishermen safer at sea.
Karl Turner
The hon. Gentleman is right that the industry was never safe. Fishermen in Hull and across the country were referred to as “three-day millionaires” because they were paid well, relatively speaking, but when we think about it, they were not paid well enough. The risk of going out to sea on those vessels often meant they did not come home. He makes a good point.
If I may, I am keen to get back to “Big Lil” Bilocca. She is remembered with folk-hero status in Hull, and her legacy is the cornerstone of our respect for this once dominant industry.
The cultural institutions marking the contribution of trawlermen and the wider industry to the city of Hull have gone from strength to strength in recent years. Both the Arctic Corsair and the Spurn lightship have recently undergone dry-dock repairs to preserve them for generations to come, which I am delighted to see. It has chiefly been led by Hull City Council and its leader Daren Hale, and they have ensured that the “Hull: Yorkshire’s Maritime City” project undertakes the vital work needed to preserve and promote Hull’s 800 years of seafaring history.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I pay tribute to Hull City Council, which is clearly doing a lot of work on its fishing heritage. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Fleetwood Town Council, which since 2017 has taken on responsibility for the two memorials to fishing in Fleetwood? There is one on Dock Street next to Asda and, of course, one on the promenade. As we have two memorials in one fishing town, does that not suggest that a national memorial could solidify how communities across the British Isles have paid the ultimate price to put food on the table?
Karl Turner
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is no secret that she is a powerful voice for the industry in her constituency. Indeed, she has often discussed the issue with me and other colleagues who are keen to ensure that it is raised.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
I pay tribute to the Looe harbour commissioners, who have a memorial on the harbourside with my late husband’s name on it, among many others. I also pay tribute to Plymouth City Council, which has a memorial on Plymouth Hoe for merchant seamen. Every year, the fishing industry is included in Merchant Navy Day, but we really must look to have a fishermen’s memorial day.
Karl Turner
I am grateful once more to the hon. Lady. She reminds me of how merchant seamen always remark of the bravery of fishermen. I think merchant ships used to be referred to as big boats, and seamen went out on big boats that had some protection, so they were safer, even all those years ago. Fishermen often went out on tiny vessels in perilous conditions, risking their lives on every occasion—no matter the weather—to put food on the table.
It is very much a team effort to mark the contribution of the fishing industry—not just to our city—and to commemorate those who lost their lives, and I am pleased to see that it has cross-party support in the Chamber. I pay tribute in particular to the founders and organisers of Lost Trawlermen’s Day, the St Andrews Dock Heritage Park Action Group—also known as STAND—in Hull, as well as my constituent Ian Bowes and his fellow tour guides on the Arctic Corsair, who are keeping the history alive for younger generations. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), who is just as passionate about the subject as I am. She would have been incredibly keen to be involved in the debate, but unfortunately she could not be here. Most of all, credit must go to all the family and loved ones of trawlermen lost at sea, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that they were not forgotten.
Hull’s history as a city built around the fishing industry and off the backs of hard-working fishermen is mirrored in many towns and cities across the country. Fishing is an essential part of our identity as an island nation. For all the difficult arguments around national identity, I think that fish and chips is high on the list of those on all sides of the political divide.
The building of the railways in the mid-19th century at a stroke expanded the potential market for fresh fish, creating a direct route to supply the growing industrial working classes with affordable protein. Somewhere along the way, some bright soul paired the fried white fish with chips. It was a fabulous idea, for which I am sure Members across the House are entirely thankful. I am—although I am not sure that my waistline is very pleased. I am afraid to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is something that I enjoy quite regularly.
Lia Nici
I will spare some of the hon. Member’s blushes—we all like fish and chips a little bit too much. On a serious note, does he agree that we should also remember that, as Lloyd’s Register Foundation estimates, about 24,000 fishermen die around the world each year catching fish for all of us to eat?
Karl Turner
That is an excellent point, and I have to confess that it is a point I had not intended to remark upon in my notes.
I believe the moment is long overdue for formal nationwide recognition of the contribution of trawlermen to our shared national story, and I urge the Government to take Hull’s lead and officially recognise the last Sunday in January, if at all possible, as the UK’s Lost Trawlermen’s Day.
I should make it clear, because I think it is an extremely important point, that the reference to trawlermen in the title of this debate is drawn directly from its use in Hull’s Lost Trawlermen’s Day. It is not in any way intended to exclude those who have lost their lives at sea fishing by means other than trawl—other methods are dominant in many regional industries—or, indeed, to exclude women at sea. I am happy for any national day to have a different title reflecting these very important facts. It is the principle of remembrance for those who risked, and frequently lost, their lives to put the national dish on the table that I am advocating tonight.
Although I am happy to be corrected, my understanding is that, in the absence of a formal mechanism by which the day would be instituted, the Minister could commit the Government today, from the Dispatch Box, to recognising Lost Trawlermen’s Day as a national day of remembrance, and I hope that he will. If the Government truly want to recognise the contribution of fishing communities to our national life, especially the sacrifice of those who never came back, they could perhaps commit some money as well.
We could establish a formal ceremony on the last Sunday in January with the Government’s backing. Exactly what form this should take is not for me or indeed for the Minister to decide, but I would respectfully suggest a public consultation to enable organisations working with current and ex-fishermen and families who have lost loved ones to have their say on this important issue. However, if the Government are willing to put some effort in and give fishing communities the respect they deserve, recognising the historic role they have played, they could do no worse than follow Hull’s lead.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on securing this debate, and on the passion with which he delivered the speech and his enthusiasm for that national dish he mentioned.
The trawlermen of coastal communities around the UK make an invaluable contribution to our economy and to keeping our nation fed, but while we enjoy eating our fish in the warmth and comfort of our homes and restaurants, it is easy to forget the skill and the courage of the trawlermen who landed the catch. The coastal waters of the UK are hazardous, weather conditions and sea states can change quickly, and it takes a special person to work, day in and day out, in conditions that include high winds, towering waves, lashing rain and freezing temperatures.
These hazards were brought home to us all too tragically in my constituency in January when the fishing vessel Nicola Faith, sailing from Conwy harbour, went missing with all hands. An exhaustive search and rescue operation was launched, including shore-based coastguard teams and Royal National Lifeboat Institution crews from Conwy, Llandudno, Beaumaris, Rhyl and Hoylake, but to no avail. It would be two months before the bodies of skipper Carl McGrath and crew members Ross Ballantine and Alan Minard were eventually found off the Wirral and Blackpool. The vessel’s empty life raft had been recovered off the coast of Scotland a few days earlier, and the wreck was eventually recovered in May. We all now await the marine accident investigation branch’s report into these tragic events. I recite this as the plain record of tragic events, but the reality is a devastating loss for the families and loved ones of these young men.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Does my hon. Friend agree with me, as someone who knows exactly how those families feel, that to celebrate the trawlermen’s lives in the way the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) has described is the best way forward?
Robin Millar
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I agree. The loss still resonates in communities in Hull and Grimsby months and years later, as we have heard, and remembering and celebrating the work of trawlermen and fishermen from of those communities is important.
I will conclude by placing on a record my respects to the crew of the Nicola Faith and extending my condolences to their families and loved ones. I also thank all those who participated in the extensive search, rescue and recovery operations. It is right that the courage and sacrifice of trawlermen lost at sea is remembered, and I welcome the consideration that has been given to that in the debate this evening.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I would like to add my condolences to everybody who has lost a loved one in the job that they were doing. In Grimsby, in the just under 100 years in which this has been recorded, we have lost more than 7,000 fishermen. I thank Doreen Tyson who did all the work as a researcher and supplied it to the Fishing Heritage Centre in Grimsby and to the Fishermen’s Mission. I suggest to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) that something that Winston Churchill said after the second world war will resonate for all time. He said:
“The work you do is hard and dangerous. You rarely get, and never seek, publicity. Your only concern is to do your job, and you have done it nobly.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on securing this important debate on the creation of a national Lost Trawlermen’s Memorial Day. Fishing and the courage of fishermen are woven deep into the fabric of this nation. Perhaps too few are truly aware of the dangers that fishermen face to put food on our plates, or of their place in our maritime history, serving our nation in peace and war to keep this country fed and protected.
I was particularly struck by the hon. Gentleman’s speech. More than 6,000 fishermen from Hull have lost their lives in the past 100 years, either through fishing tragedies or when their vessels were engaged in wartime service. More than 1,200 fishermen working from Hull died in the first world war; 300 Hull ships were used as minesweepers and for searching for submarines, and by the end of the war, only 91 Hull-owned ships were still afloat. Between 1939 and 1945, 191 trawlers from Hull were taken into military service, and 96 of them were lost. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) is right to say that this sacrifice and this service are nowhere near well enough publicised. The work of the Royal Naval Patrol Service and others ought to be remembered by all of us in this House and across the nation.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on securing this debate. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the number of people who are in the Chamber for this Adjournment debate tonight, representing all parts of the United Kingdom, just goes to show how much we owe the fishermen who have been described tonight? I should also like to add my thanks, through the Minister, to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for visiting my constituency earlier this year and for signing the book of condolence in Fraserburgh. I think they both found it quite touching that such a memorial already existed, but I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that a specific day for recognising our fishermen is a worthy cause.
Robert Courts
I warmly agree with everything my hon. Friend says. We have heard moving speeches from Members on both sides of the House. The support from all parts of the United Kingdom and all political parties makes very clear how important this matter is to the entire country, and I commend all hon. and right hon. Members for having taken part and having made their contributions so movingly.
We have been hearing this evening about sacrifice and service. That tradition continues to this day and is likely to continue through the challenges of the covid pandemic. It is absolutely clear that we all owe a debt of gratitude to those we have lost. I start my thanks by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East for having secured this debate, and to his constituents, who commemorate the memory of those lost trawlermen already at the annual Lost Trawlermen’s Day held locally in Hull.
If I may, I shall take a moment to recognise that this country owes a debt of gratitude to all those who work in perilous working conditions—not just fishermen, but all those who work at sea to keep our critical supply chains moving. A timely reminder of this is the collision that took place early this morning between the UK-flagged Scot Carrier and the Danish-flagged Karin Hoej in Swedish territorial waters near the Danish island of Bornholm. The detail of the incident is still emerging, and I hope the House will understand that I must not comment further until the maritime accident investigation branches have concluded their investigations. What I can say is that I extend my thoughts and prayers to the families of all those seafarers who are still missing, and my very best wishes to all those involved, including those from the Swedish and Danish search and rescue services who have been responding to this incident today. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I thank them and salute them.
I must praise the critical role that the families of fishermen in Hull have played. Their work is the foundation stone on which we are building and improving fishing safety. Following the tragic loss of 58 lives on three fishing vessels—the triple trawler tragedy from Hull at the start of 1968—the campaigning of the headscarf revolutionaries led by Lillian Bilocca, Christine Jensen, Mary Denness and Yvonne Blenkinsop resulted in the first steps in improving fishing safety. They were all fishermen’s wives. How extraordinarily moving and poignant it is that we have in the House my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who added her devastating personal loss to the debate today. We thank her and salute her for her passionate work on fishing safety, ongoing for so many years.
Members were all as struck as I was by the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) about the hush of cold silence that descended over the town when a trawler was lost. The determination of the headscarf revolutionaries to see full crewing of ships, radio operators on every ship, improved weather forecasts, better training for crew and more safety equipment led to the publication of the Holland-Martin trawler safety report in 1969. At that time, more than 60 fishermen a year were being lost. As we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), each one of those represents for their families mourning that never ends.
In 1975, we saw the first significant regulations introduced for fishing vessels of 12 metres and over. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East said, the introduction of the regulations is a testament to the work of the headscarf revolutionaries and those who supported them, and I pay tribute to them.
Fishing has changed since the 1960s and 1970s. When the Holland-Martin report was published, we had a sizeable deep water fleet; now our vessels tend to be smaller. Actual trawlermen, as the technical phrase is, are fewer, but the danger to those who fish commercially remains, albeit in different forms. I welcome the opportunity to recognise and highlight the real dangers that fishermen face every time they go to sea, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) rightly said, to provide food for us.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on securing the debate. As, I think, the only current Member of the House who is married to a fisherman, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his kind words in suggesting that all fishermen need to be remembered, not just those who work on large boats. My husband works on an under-10 metre vessel. There is a bit of déjà vu because I mentioned it in my maiden speech, but we can send them out on a calm clear day, and then the weather turns and we do not know if they are going to come home safely or not. They can call you and say, “It could be two hours before I get back,” and the worry is very palpable. So I thank my hon. Friend for his words and hope that the memorial day will connect everybody in the country to their fishermen and their coastal communities, and to the dangers involved in bringing food to their tables.
Robert Courts
I thank my hon. Friend very much for that intervention. She really brings home to us all the importance of what we are discussing. I very much hope that this debate and the idea the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East has had will help, as she says, to connect people. Perhaps that is the point the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood was making as well—about connecting people to an understanding of what others do in order to bring food to them. They both make that point exceptionally well and I thank them for doing so.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point of connection and for reflecting on the contribution of our fishing industry during times of conflict. It is worth remembering that we have just seen the passing of the last man who was part of the Shetland Bus, Jakob Strandheim. That still lives very strongly in the communities I represent in Shetland, but as we get further from the memory of what they did, acts of commemoration like this will be all the more important.
Robert Courts
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I thank him for making that point. He is absolutely right that the memories of the sacrifices made by communities runs deep, but we must not be complacent. Those extraordinary acts of sacrifice, through the sheer passage of time become something we have to redouble our efforts to remember. There are those we have lost, but also, as we have heard, those currently working in what is a uniquely dangerous industry.
I believe there is merit in exploring further the idea from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, supported by so many Members across this House, of a national memorial day dedicated to those who have lost their lives. Consequently, I have asked my officials to explore the proposal further. I would like it very much if the hon. Gentleman and all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken were a part of that engagement as we consider the proposal further.
Mrs Murray
I am really pleased to hear those words from my hon. Friend, because there are so many people in my position, but they have no grave to visit, no body to bury, because some fishermen are lost at sea, never to be seen again. To give them a day when they will be able to pay tribute to their loved ones is very, very important thing. Believe you me, I know. I am one of the lucky ones.
Robert Courts
I thank my hon. Friend for making the point so beautifully, so poignantly, so eloquently. All I can do is pay tribute to her again for her fortitude and for her passionate campaigning. I hope very much that she will take part in the work we do as we explore the proposal further. I am glad that it may offer her, and others like her, comfort and solace.
I hope the House will allow me, while we remember those we have lost, to say a word or two to focus on what we can do to make the industry a safer working environment for the men and women working in it today and in the future. The 1980s, 1990s and 2000s saw new requirements to improve safety. For example, we now have basic safety training for those who want to work on a fishing vessel. Skippers must have certificates of competency. We have better health and safety requirements, such as the need to assess risks. We have seen the progressive introduction of new standards for smaller fishing vessels. Those changes have had a significant impact on fatalities in fishing, which have reduced from 60 a year in the 1960s to an average of six in recent years, as we have heard. Of course, that is still too high. It is true that the numbers fishing at sea have reduced by about 45% since those days, while fatalities have reduced by 90%. That must show that the safety changes have had an impact.
While that is a massive improvement on where we used to be, sadly this year we have seen the loss of 10 fishermen to date. No one should lose their life to provide food for our plates, so there is more to be done to make fishing safer and to protect those who choose to work in this historic industry. After all, fishing remains the most dangerous industry in the United Kingdom. On average, there are approximately 53 fatalities per 100,000 in fishing, set against 0.5 per 100,000 for the general workforce. For us, this continued loss of life is unacceptable. To think otherwise would be a betrayal of the memory of those we have lost over the years.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) told us so movingly, the loss of life continues right up to today. The loss of the Nicola Faith on 27 January 2021 resulted in the loss of Alan Minard, Ross Ballantine and skipper Carl McGrath in the Colwyn Bay area of north Wales. Again, this matter is still under investigation by the marine accident investigation branch. While I can say nothing further, I of course send my condolences and thank my hon. Friend for his moving contribution.
What more can be done? Do we accept that fishing is dangerous and the loss of life therefore inevitable? My Department and I do not believe that to be the case. I say that as someone who reads all the marine accident investigation branch reports before they are published. I am determined that more can be done.
We should be encouraged by what has been achieved in Iceland. In the 1980s, it experienced on average more than 12 fatalities a year in its fishing industry. From 2017 to 2020, there were none. Our fishing industry can be safer. That is why the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the Sea Fish Industry Authority and the national fishing federations, partnered together in the Fishing Industry Safety Group, have the aim of eliminating preventable fatalities by 2027.
We know that in the UK, based on the investigations undertaken by the marine accident investigation branch, there are three main causes of fatality: people going overboard, vessel stability and personal accidents. The MCA and its partners are working tirelessly to address those challenges. I will say a word or two about each, if I may.
Starting with going overboard, ideally not going overboard in the first place is the best option. To help fishermen think about how not to go overboard, in 2018 new health and safety regulations were introduced that require risk assessments. Risks that might cause someone to go overboard now have to be recorded alongside steps to prevent it happening, or at least to reduce the chances. The new requirements cover everyone on board, not just those under contract.
Where the risk of going overboard cannot be eliminated, people must wear a personal flotation device. The industry has been working hard for many years to get fishermen to wear personal flotation devices. Seafish and the national federations have provided more than 8,000 devices free to crews, particularly those on small fishing vessels. We have heard from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) how valuable that is and the massive difference it has made in his constituency. I thank him for his work, as well as other Members who have helped spread the word about personal flotation devices around our coasts and in their constituencies. Excellent work is being done by the RNLI and Seafish through practical demonstrations at environmental pools around the country.
Even with the great work that is going on, sadly we still see regular fatal incidents where fishermen enter the water and are found not wearing a personal flotation device. When the encouragement, training and guidance fail, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, as the regulator, can use its aerial surveillance capability to check that personal flotation devices are being worn when the risk of going overboard has not been eliminated, and it can take action.
I will say a word about vessel stability. Requirements have existed for larger fishing vessels since the introduction of new rules in 1975 as a result of the work of the headscarf revolutionaries, but no such requirements existed for small vessels, making up the majority of the fleet. Unlike going overboard, which normally involves just one person, capsize can be a sudden and catastrophic event that ends the lives of everyone on board. The loss of vessels such as the Stella Maris, the JMT, the Purbeck Isle, the Sarah Jayne, the Nancy Glen and the Heather Anne, to name but a few, led to the introduction in September of new stability requirements for smaller vessels.
We heard of the importance of safety and newer vessels and new safety requirements from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and he is right. Just last week, we saw the launch of the latest phase of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s “Home and Dry” campaign, with videos on how to conduct tests and avoid compromising a vessel’s stability. Since 2008, the MCA has invested more than £3 million to support training in stability awareness and other safety skills. It is anticipated that, next year, the MCA will consult on introducing mandatory stability training.
Although stability nowadays is a problem for small fishing vessels, the working environment of a fishing vessel, with the dynamic movement of the vessel and equipment, means that accidents for those on board are all too common. Despite the challenging working conditions, accidents are not inevitable. The good maintenance of equipment, safe operating systems, regular review of those systems and following good safety behaviours can reduce or eliminate the risks, whether someone is working a machine on land or fishing gear at sea. I am heartened that the industry has developed a free online safety management system that helps to achieve those things. I encourage all those fishing commercially either to adopt that system or develop their own in line with the MCA’s maritime guidance note covering the topic.
Mrs Murray
Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to his predecessor, who worked with me in 2011 to try to introduce safety stop buttons for deck equipment, which was one of the things that was entirely responsible for my late husband’s death?
Robert Courts
Yes, I wholeheartedly pay tribute to my predecessor for that work and to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall for her passionate advocacy of that critical step. Thank goodness that is one step we have been able to take, but there is so much more to do, and I look forward to working with her and others on that.
Changes can take time to have an effect. Although we can introduce new requirements, have more robust enforcement, develop training, give guidance, run publicity campaigns and provide funding, ultimately, safety is the responsibility of the owners of the vessel on which people work and, undoubtedly, those on board. We must always remember those who, sadly, have died while fishing, and there is no better way of remembering than by looking to the industry to eliminate all preventable deaths in future. We should follow the lead of the headscarf revolutionaries by bringing together people with all groups, not just in Government, who can influence and drive change in the industry.
Ultimately, although the Government can support initiatives and introduce new requirements, only those involved in fishing can prevent further fatalities and we will need to work with them to help to improve their safety. However, we will not sit back and wait to see whether safety improves. In the new year, I intend to write to all hon. Members with constituency fishing interests. I would like to explore this and use their unique insight and knowledge gained through their work in their constituencies—their thoughts and ideas on what they, their constituents and others can do to improve safety in this critical industry.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response to everyone tonight; it has been exemplary and we really appreciate it. He understands where we are all coming from. In my village of Portavogie, which I represent, we have a memorial—a statue of a fisherman in a sou’wester as he steers a boat. It epitomises and captures the feelings of us all in the area. I had a brother who fished on the boats and I have lost some dear friends over the years, so I understand the issue.
It is really important for the hon. Gentleman to get all the viewpoints, not just of those who are here, but of the fish producer organisations that have the knowledge of the local communities who have lost their loved ones. We can feed all that into the process. I think he is saying that that is what he wants to do, and if that is the case, that is the way forward.
Robert Courts
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. That is indeed what I should like to do. I have been very struck by the tragedies about which I have read and heard since I have been fortunate enough to be in this post, and I should very much like to seek the aid of hon. Members such as him to ensure that communities, representatives, and indeed everyone who wants to feed in their views to assist this can have those views heard. Driving down those unnecessary fatalities is a goal towards which we can all strive, and of which we can be proud. It would be a fitting achievement, and a fitting tribute to all those who have lost their lives.
Let me end by leaving one thought with the House. Over this winter, if any of us or any of our constituents—anyone watching this debate—turns in for a late night after a fish-and-chip supper in a warm pub, deep in landlocked safety, I hope we will take a minute, just once, to tune in to the shipping forecast, with its calm gale warnings, and will think of those at sea, risking life and limb that we might be in bed, safe and warm and fed.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chair: Peter Dowd
Bacon, Mr Richard (South Norfolk) (Con)
† Baillie, Siobhan (Stroud) (Con)
Bryant, Chris (Rhondda) (Lab)
† Cox, Sir Geoffrey (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
† Doogan, Dave (Angus) (SNP)
† Duguid, David (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
† Dunne, Philip (Ludlow) (Con)
† Greenwood, Lilian (Nottingham South) (Lab)
† Harrison, Trudy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport)
† Holloway, Adam (Gravesham) (Con)
Johnson, Dame Diana (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
† Leadbeater, Kim (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
† Poulter, Dr Dan (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
† Solloway, Amanda (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Tarry, Sam (Ilford South) (Lab)
† Trott, Laura (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Winter, Beth (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Ian Bradshaw, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(2):
Smyth, Karin (Bristol South) (Lab)
Third Delegated Legislation Committee
Monday 13 December 2021
[Peter Dowd in the Chair]
Draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021
The Chair
I can confirm that we are quorate. Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings and to maintain distancing as far as possible, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. I also remind Members that they are asked to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if they come on to the estate, either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Members should send their speaking notes by email to handardnotes@parliament.uk. Officials in the Gallery should communicate electronically with Ministers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021.
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. This statutory instrument, together with the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021, and the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021, which follows the negative procedure, are part of several measures through which the Government are seeking to address a heavy goods vehicle driver shortage.
The regulations were originally laid before Parliament on 16 September 2021 as the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021. However, the No. 2 regulations were not approved in both Houses in time to come into force on 15 November 2021 as intended. Since such affirmative statutory instruments cannot be amended once laid before Parliament in draft, we have taken action to lay the regulations afresh, as the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021. The No. 5 regulations are a replication of the No. 2 regulations, save for an updated title and coming-into-force provision.
The haulage sector has for some time been experiencing an acute shortage of heavy goods vehicle drivers worldwide. The coronavirus pandemic suspended driver testing for much of last year, which increased the shortage further. The shortage affects the supply chains of not only fresh food but fuel, medicines and medical equipment across Great Britain.
As hon. Members will be aware, we are working at pace to deliver Government interventions, including regulatory changes that could alleviate the HGV driver shortage. I recognise the Committee’s concern that evidence could not be provided; I reassure hon. Members that the Department for Transport takes seriously its responsibility with regard to evidence-based policy-making. I am pleased to report that an impact assessment has now been submitted to the Regulatory Policy Committee for scrutiny. I am grateful that these debates could be held at the earliest opportunity, so that we can address this issue as a matter of priority.
This statutory instrument is part of 32 Government interventions to help alleviate the haulier shortage. The overall aim of the SI is to increase the number of heavy goods vehicle drivers in Great Britain by increasing the number of test slots available to drivers wishing to pass the HGV driver test, while maintaining road safety standards following any changes made to the driving licence testing regime.
The intention of the No. 5 regulations is to remove the need for driving licence categories B and E—that is, car and trailer tests—which are currently required by car drivers who wish to tow a heavy trailer. Driving examiners have limited test availability, and this legislation would free up driver examiner time that could be reallocated to conducting HGV tests. That should provide additional availability of tests for potential HGV and bus drivers, to help lessen the driver shortage. For car drivers, the change in legislation will mean that they will be able to tow a heavier trailer—up to 3.5 tonnes or 3,500 kg— automatically once they hold a category B licence, without needing to take an additional B+E test.
Theory and practical training will continue to be recommended to help maintain driver safety on the roads. An accreditation scheme is being developed, with help from the trailer industry and training providers. The scheme will provide voluntary training opportunities for car drivers wishing to tow a trailer of any size for either recreational or business use. My officials have met with the all-party parliamentary group on trailer and towing safety to develop the outline of the scheme, and to consider core modules that would be applicable to all drivers who tow, as well as sector-specific modules. These might cover activities such as safely managing livestock and breakdown recovery towing.
We are already working with trainers and those in leisure and business to develop the trainer package. Together with these groups and the police, we will identify the additional data needed to monitor towing standards effectively. The scheme is planned to launch early next year and will focus, through the provision of specialised modules, on specific driver needs when towing different types of trailers. We will continue to recommend car drivers to undertake training on safely towing and managing trailers. We will encourage drivers through our existing campaigns, and we will work with leisure and towing groups to reach out with offers of training through their communications.
Road safety is, of course, of the utmost importance. That is why we have committed to reviewing this legislation at regular intervals—initially after three years have passed, and thereafter at five-year intervals. An impact assessment will be published early in the new year. Owing to road safety concerns, we decided to hold an additional review three years after legislative change, rather than after the standard five years. It is worth noting that around 6 million drivers who passed their test before 1 January 1997 can already drive a car with a trailer without having to take a separate test. This change affords that same entitlement to drivers who passed the test after 1997.
We should be proud that the UK has some of the safest roads in the world. I reassure the Committee that our support for the “Tow Safe 4 Freddie” campaign will continue.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The Minister is making important points about this proposed legislation. Will she reassure me that the impact assessment that her officials will produce in January, after this instrument has come into effect, will include an assessment of how many training establishments that were established to provide training to drivers on towing vehicles, rather than offering more advanced heavy goods vehicle courses, will have gone out of business? A constituent of mine has set up a business and is of the opinion that none of his trainers will go on to train HGV drivers, because that is not what they want to do. The objective of this provision is right: we should try to increase the capacity for HGV driver training. However, I am concerned that we may inadvertently shut down viable businesses across the country.
Trudy Harrison
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I will endeavour to ensure that the impact assessment takes that figure into consideration. We are working with training providers, and we are also looking at potential compensation schemes. My right hon. Friend should, in the first instance, suggest that his constituent accesses the helpline via the Government website.
We should be proud that the UK has some of the safest roads in the world. I referred to the “Tow Safe 4 Freddie” campaign. This will continue. We will draw attention to the importance of motorists doing safety checks whenever they are towing. The removal of the separate test for car drivers wishing to tow a trailer or caravan frees up some 30,000 vocational test slots annually. That equates to up to 550 extra tests a week, or a 37% increase in weekly tests, relative to pre-pandemic levels. This SI supports the streamlining of testing to increase the number of HGV tests taking place. Thanks to the great efforts of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency staff, the backlog of 55,000 driving licence applications for heavy goods vehicle drivers has been eliminated. These are now being processed within the normal turnaround time of five working days.
Keeping our roads safe is of paramount importance, and we will monitor the situation and act if needed, if our roads become less safe. This SI is just one of 32 Government interventions to tackle this issue, to help reduce the strain on our national supply chains, which is affecting every aspect of our daily lives.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, for the first time.
Our views on this legislation are already on record, so I will not reiterate all the points made in previous debates. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South is here, and I am sure she will have a few things to say about the regulations. We on the Opposition Benches understand the Minister’s rationale for this decision, as the regulations make a technical amendment, but it would be remiss of me not to ask a few questions. We all want the HGV shortage to be addressed. Let us be clear: that shortage has been many months, if not years, in the making. Successive Conservative Governments have had the opportunity to address the problem, and have so far failed to get a permanent, workable solution.
As a result of that mismanagement, MPs are today being asked to make a decision that has significant risks. What do we know? Some 30% of drivers fail the B+E test, and since the introduction of the test in 1997, road safety has improved. Ministers simply do not know the risks associated with this decision, and whether a younger cohort more prone to accidents will begin towing as a result of it. These are serious questions that need to be addressed.
It is not acceptable for MPs to be asked to take a decision blindly, when the Department’s impact assessment of the implications for road safety is either not completed or not being shared with Parliament. The ability of this place to scrutinise the Government has been compromised as a result. We did not hear answers when the matter was debated in the Chamber a few weeks ago. Given that implications of the decision are as yet unknown to Parliament, I would like to press the Minister on the review period. A review of the implications of the decision will take place only every three years. That cannot be right. I ask the Minister to consider a shorter period, and to update the House on towing accident figures quarterly; that will give some reassurance that those involved will be in a position to undertake remedial action swiftly if a problem emerges.
In the absence of an impact assessment, can the Minister explain the thinking that underpins the safety assessment? Baroness Vere said in her letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that there is not currently any statistical evidence to suggest that competence and skills will worsen if drivers do not take a statutory test to tow a trailer. What statistical evidence did Ministers assess to come to that conclusion? Are they conducting an assessment of whether there will be a change in the trend in the age distribution of drivers towing trailers if all current and future car licence holders become automatically eligible to tow, and will that be published?
Although we will not oppose the regulations, we would welcome, either here or in writing, answers to the very serious questions that we have for Ministers, and we would like to put on record our serious concern about the way in which the regulations have been managed.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I rise to speak on behalf of my constituents, but also as chair of the all-party towing and trailer safety group. I put on record my strong opposition to the regulations on the Floor of the House on 8 November. Since then, the Government have created such chaos, through the announcement in September of this measure, which has still not been brought into law, that I have frankly become less assured, and more concerned, as the weeks have gone on. We are now unleashing thousands of untrained, unsafe and unqualified drivers of trailers on to our roads. It really does beggar belief that we are still doing this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South mentioned the answers Baroness Vere of Norbiton gave to questions tabled by the noble Baroness Randerson and Lord Bassam. I do not know if you have seen answers like this, Mr Dowd, in your time in the House, but the answers we have had to questions asking the Government
“what data they hold on the safety impact of the B+E car and trailer test; and what criteria they will use to review the impact on safety of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021 after three years”
beggar belief. The answer states:
“There is not currently any statistical evidence to categorically say that competence and skills will worsen if drivers do not take a statutory test to tow a trailer.”
In that case, frankly, I do not know why we are taking a driving test at all. Baroness Vere goes on to say:
“Road safety has significantly improved over recent decades for several reasons”—
we do not dispute that—
“and it is therefore difficult to identify how much the car trailer test…has made a difference since it was introduced in 1997…The number of trailer accidents is low, with the proportion of accidents of cars/vans towing a trailer compared to all car/van accidents, as roughly 0.45% in 2019.”
Over the past four years, the all-party parliamentary group on trailer and towing safety has worked steadfastly with the Department for Transport to gather data and information. The problem with further improving safety is that there has not been any more data and information.
Baroness Vere goes on to say:
“In respect of the demographics of the drivers towing trailers, our statistics show that individuals generally only start getting their car and trailer licence (Category B+E licences) from their late 30s and 40s onwards”.
If this is such a crisis, what is stopping drivers in their 20s from driving these trailers without a test? I have the support of the Association of British Insurers and of the Road Haulage Association, because they know that it is not safe—with all due respect to 22-year-olds—to put a 22-year-old on the roads, untested and unqualified, driving those trailers. I have spoken to very many people in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s, including people like me who, as the Minister has said, do not need the test. None of us thinks that we are competent to drive those trailers without training and testing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South said, we already know that 30% of people who have been trained and tested fail.
As I said in November, this move is reckless and dangerous. We know that 50% of trailers on the roads are already not compliant, as shown by the APPG’s work over the past few years, and that 30% of people fail the test. We know that the Government do not know the impact of their decisions, and that the so-called review after three years is a hollow commitment based on no data. I hope that the Minister will respond to my hon. Friend by explaining what on earth the criteria will be that are used to assess these regulations when they are reviewed in three years’ time. I will be here in three years’ time, and will hold the Government to their commitments. I promised my constituents Scott and Donna Hussey that I would do all I can to honour the memory of their son through “Tow Safe 4 Freddie”. I am grateful for the fact that the Government will continue their commitment to that campaign, but I am really quite appalled that we are back here again today, and I sincerely hope that, as a result of these regulations, we do not see the sort of reckless and unsafe driving on the roads that I fear we will.
Trudy Harrison
I will try to give Members some reassurance. As I have said, these regulations will free up 36,000 tests per year—550 extra tests per week—for heavy goods vehicle drivers who are bringing medicines, medical supplies and food to every part of our country. We had 9,541 responses to this consultation, which were mostly positive, and we will publish the full response in the impact assessment early next year. We will continually review this issue and take action when needed.
It is also worth pointing out that the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency works throughout the year to ensure as far as possible that trailers, including caravans and trailers up to 3,500 kg—which I can tow, because I am 45 years old and passed my test before 1 January 1997—are roadworthy. To provide some indication of the work the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency is doing, 3,219 tests were carried out on those trailers between September 2019 and September 2021, and only 50% passed. Some 732 tests were carried out on caravans, and only 12% passed, so I am setting out the need for further accreditation. Importantly, that can be accreditation that is suitable for the particular trailer that the motorist will be towing. It will also cover the maintenance of that trailer, which the test did not previously do.
I commend the hon. Member for Bristol South on the work she has done, as well as the work of the APPG and, of course, the “Tow Safe 4 Freddie” campaign. Perhaps early in 2022, particularly at the time of year when people are thinking about taking their caravans out or doing a tip run with their trailer for the first time in months, we will be able to work together to raise awareness of the benefits of training for towing and—just as importantly—maintaining trailers. That is what these regulations will achieve: the kind of accreditation that is suitable for the types of trailers and vehicles that are being used on the UK’s roads.
I have set out the reasons why we are doing this, so I will close by saying that if there are further aspects of the detail of the review that I have not been able to cover during today’s debate, I am very happy to respond in writing to the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ilford South. I commend the regulations, which were laid before the House on 23 November, to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee rose.
Draft Wine (Amendment) Regulations 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 that, in line with guidance from the Government and the House of Commons Commission, they are expected to wear face coverings and to maintain distancing, so far as is possible, which I see you are all doing beautifully. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if they are coming on to the estate. That can be done in the testing centre in the House, or at home. Please could Members email their speaking notes to Hansardnotes@parliament.uk?
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Wine (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
The regulations, which were laid before the House on 23 November, remove the requirement for wine imported to Great Britain to be accompanied by a VI-1 certificate. This statutory instrument is very good news; Members who arrived at the Committee early have heard that I am inordinately excited about it. It is part of the bonfire of Brexit red tape. It will help support an industry worth over £1 billion a year, and will help the UK to remain a global hub for the wine trade. If we agree to the SI, it is not only EU wine that will be allowed into the country without a VI-1 certificate; so will wine from the rest of world, including wine from Australia, Chile, New Zealand and the USA. These wines represent about half the wines on our shelves. This is a really positive step forward, and I thank the wine trade and Members of this House for working with us on this.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
The Minister is, in effect, proposing to reduce red tape. Should that not lower the price of wine?
Victoria Prentis
I was anticipating that question. That is probably something for the wine trade to think about internally. Although the wine trade will find the change beneficial, I suspect that the price of a bottle of wine will not change all that much—but we live in hope.
The SI will make changes to retained EU law to ensure that wines produced in GB are subject to appropriate supervision, inspection and authentication checks. It also introduces provisions to ensure that the lot code arrangements between GB and the EU for wines continue to operate. Lot codes are an important tool for tracing wine products prepared or packaged under the same conditions.
Finally, the regulations will implement article 5 of annex 15 to the trade and co-operation agreement, concerning transitional arrangements. There will be a two-year grace period from 1 May to allow wine stocks to be run down at producer and wholesale level; stores have until stock runs out to comply.
We have a flourishing wine and viticulture sector in this country. Through this instrument, the Government are making regulatory changes that support wine importers, bottling plants, and exporters across the country, from Accolade Wines in Avonmouth and Kingsland Drinks in Manchester to Greencroft Bottling in County Durham. We are removing a burdensome technical barrier to trade. The Department will continue to work with the industry and across Government to make sure that we have the best possible regulatory regime for wine.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I am delighted to speak from the Front Bench as the shadow Minister for Agri-innovation and Climate Adaptation. [Interruption.] Yes. Following the recent reshuffle of Labour’s Front Benchers, I have a slightly different brief, but I remain focused on holding the Government to account for protecting our environment and our planet. I bring the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), the shadow Food, Farming, Fisheries and Rural Affairs Minister, who is in Westminster Hall this evening, and so could not lead for the Opposition on the regulations. I declare an interest: I have been known to have the odd glass of wine after a long day in this House, so I speak with some authority on the subject.
I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to explain the purpose of the statutory instrument. The regulations will ensure that the United Kingdom meets its legal obligations to implement the provisions in annex 15 to the trade and co-operation agreement, which deals with the trade in wine. The regulations will amend rules concerning lot marking and the import and export certification arrangements for wine products, as well as putting in place transitional marketing arrangements. These changes are very welcome but long overdue. Labour Members will not oppose them, not least because many of us, including my tenacious hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, spent much of the early part of this year arguing that the Government should show some leadership and get rid of that much-hated VI-1 form.
It may be that celebrations are in order, and that we can pop the cork on the bottle of progress and common sense, but before we get carried away, remember that there is so much more to do. I gently remind the House of the factors in and concerns associated with the debate and the issues covered by the SI. The Government initially chose to roll over EU rules and regulations on wine imports. Those rules required detailed import certification—the VI-1 form, which we have heard about—in addition to standard customs paperwork for all wine imports from third countries. The form includes details such as how strong a wine is, what grape it is, and how many containers are being sent. For each type of wine in a consignment, all those details must be listed, and the form requires a stamp from customs officials. That presents a significant logistical challenge and cost burden for wine importers.
I accept that a slightly simpler version of the VI-1 form was negotiated in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement for wine imports from the EU, but that form still required a customs stamp, and that has delayed transit through ports and placed a significant burden on our importers. The British wine industry was at a loss to understand why Ministers took that path. I acknowledge the work of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, which represents more than 300 companies that produce, import, export, transport and sell wine and spirits in the UK. WSTA members include the major retailers on our high streets, brand owners, wholesalers, fine wine and spirit specialists, and logistics and bottling companies. The association mounted a strong campaign that has drawn attention to the problems faced by so many in the sector, and I thank it for its work.
Leaving the EU made a significant difference, because in reality, the EU’s import document is a technical barrier that protects its wine industry. Whatever our views on our departure from the EU, it made very little sense for the United Kingdom—a net importer of wine—to maintain rules designed to disadvantage our imports. We import over 99% of the wine that we consume, and around half of those imports are from the EU.
I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the British wine industry and will focus on the Welsh wine sector; as I am the Member for Newport West, I trust that will come as no surprise. I draw colleagues’ attention to an October 2021 article in WalesOnline by Portia Jones, “11 beautiful Welsh vineyards that offer so much more than just fine wine”. The wines mentioned have won plaudits all around the world. I will move on swiftly, because I can see that the Chair is beginning to get a bit anxious.
Ruth Jones
I would love to name them, but sadly I am not permitted to, after the Chair’s wise words. We know about these destinations in Wales, but of course we all want the wine industry to flourish and grow for the sake of all the great English and Welsh wines. However, we are a significant importer of wines, sparkling and non-sparkling. The Minister will know that we also have a vibrant export industry, which is important, as are the regulations.
The Wine and Spirit Trade Association has been clear: as far as it can tell, the additional bureaucracy was entirely unnecessary. There was no customs requirement for it, and there were no safety issues involved. Importing 25,000 litres of South African Chardonnay, Australian Shiraz or Kiwi Sauvignon Blanc in a flexitank with one VI-1 form is much less burdensome and significantly cheaper than importing 20 wines in bottles from the EU, which requires 20 additional pieces of documentation.
We welcome the clarification provided on the position of wine produced before the agreement was put in place. On the legal marketing of these products, we note that wine is an unusual product, in that it has a long shelf life, and its value can increase over time. What happens with the two-year transition period that the Minister mentioned? Will she explain what happens after that? Given the long shelf life of the wine in our cellars, fridges, shops and kitchens, is that period long enough? What are the reasons for not having a longer, more sustainable period?
We also have questions relating to the impact on Northern Ireland, which is referred to in paragraph 7.8 of the explanatory memorandum. All too often, Northern Ireland is an afterthought for the Government, but not for us on the Opposition Benches. Will the Minister confirm that the VI-1 form—and all the problems that it brings, which I outlined—will continue to apply in Northern Ireland? We are not quite sure what is happening in Northern Ireland, so I would be grateful if the Minister could address that in detail. If that is not possible, perhaps she could guarantee to do so in writing.
I would like to acknowledge wine producers from across the United Kingdom; they, like all of us, have had a tough two years. Our economy is fuelled by business women and men who go above and beyond and show the best of British. I ask the Minister to join me in wishing all British wine producers a happy and safe Christmas, and I thank them for all they do. We do not oppose these changes, but Labour Members will continue to be vigilant. We will toast the wine sector, and we will always stand up for wine producers and consumers in all parts of our United Kingdom.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
It is a delight to follow the hon. Lady, who I think is the only one here who has been elected twice in the last two years. For those who want to follow the Welsh vineyards trail, the history of at least 10 of the 11 Welsh vineyards goes back 150 years. I pay tribute to Welsh whisky, which I have enjoyed.
I thank the Minister and her colleagues for responding to the point, made by Members from across this House, that the VI-1 form is not necessary. I pay tribute to the Wine and Spirits Trade Association, which briefed a number of us, and had one or two gatherings in the days when a gathering could or could not be a party; to the English wine producers; and to the Welsh and the Scottish—or I would, if any Scottish Members were here—for their contribution to encouraging Government to find a way forward that is sensible, and in which there are no losers and many winners.
Will the Minister say—it would be a kindness if she could write afterwards, if she does not know the answer now—when it will be possible to sell fizzy wine or champagne in a pint bottle, which was illegal during our membership of the EU? Many argue that sharing a pint with a friend or a spouse is better than sharing a half-bottle, which is not enough, or a full bottle, which is often a bit too much.
Victoria Prentis
It is a great pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for Newport West, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West, who is co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on wine and spirits, which has been extremely helpful to us in formulating this policy. I share his liking for Welsh whisky; there is also Isle of Man whisky, which is really delicious. I have heard before the point that he raises about fizzy wine. I am not sure that that is entirely in scope of the regulations, and I will, if I may, write to him about that, because there are other Departments involved in that conversation.
The hon. Member for Newport West raised various issues, including the transitional period, which I dealt with earlier. The transitional period will apply until the bottle is sold or drunk, so there is no end to that period in terms of retail sales. The SI does not apply in Northern Ireland and will not result in any changes to certification of GB-produced wine sent to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland will obviously continue to follow the rules for VI-1 certification set out in the protocol. Most movements of GB wine to NI have fallen within the scheme for temporary agri-food movements to Northern Ireland. Movements of GB wine to NI are very small; they may often fall below the 100 litre de minimis requirements for a VI-1 certificate set out in EU law.
I remind Members of the positive changes in the instrument. The regulatory changes that we are introducing enable us to meet our international obligations and implement annex 15 of the TCA. We have listened to the wine trade and Members of this House and removed the requirement for VI-1s for imports from not only the EU, but other nations from across the world that produce excellent wine.
Sir Peter Bottomley
A number of people may not know what the VI-1 form is. If they put “VI-1 form” into a search engine, fortunately the first result that comes up is the Government site, which is up to date; but the third result, using the search engine that I use, is the Food Standards Agency, which might be encouraged to update its information, because it is a year old and does not take account of these welcome changes.
Victoria Prentis
When we have made these changes—we are possibly jumping the gun a little bit—I am sure that we can pass that on. I ask hon. Members to support the SI, and I hope that the wine trade will continue to flow well this Christmas.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Network and Information Systems (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I can confirm that we are definitely quorate. Before we begin, may I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings and to maintain social distancing as far as possible? This is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if they are coming on to the parliamentary estate. This can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Similarly, officials in the Gallery should communicate—[Interruption.] Yeah, maybe not. I call the Minister.
The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Network and Information Systems (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
The regulations were laid in draft before the House on 26 October. This short but very important statutory instrument makes technical corrections to the UK’s network and information systems legislation, which arose as a result of the UK leaving the EU. These corrections will allow the Information Commissioner, in her role as the regulator for digital services providers, to be informed of important cyber incidents affecting online marketplaces, online search engines and cloud computing services in our country.
Before moving on to the amendment at hand, it is important that we first consider the context that we find ourselves in. The NIS regulations were introduced in the UK in 2018, implementing the EU’s 2016 directive on security of network and information systems. The regulations provide a legal framework to protect the network and information systems of essential and digital services. They do this by directing operators of essential services and digital service providers to take steps to protect—against cyber-attack and physical fault—the security of those systems that their services rely on.
Beyond ensuring the security of their network and information systems, these organisations have other duties as well. One of the most significant, and the most relevant for this statutory instrument, is the duty to report to their regulator incidents that have a substantial impact on their services. Such reports are critical to the regulator’s ability to react and to implement the NIS legislation. The regulator can then provide advice, report the incident to the national technical authority—in this case the National Cyber Security Centre—or take enforcement action if appropriate.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend think that these changes not only fill a gap from our leaving the EU but create an environment whereby we can perform better than if we had remained in the EU?
Julia Lopez
I would like to provide my hon. Friend with a very positive story about Brexit through these regulations, but this is quite a technical and narrow change. When it comes to his ambitions, we have a much more ambitious agenda in the coming year or so.
Without the information required, the regulator is not aware of the incident, and citizens and businesses relying on that service are affected for longer. The threshold for what qualifies as a reportable incident for the majority of the six sectors is set in statutory guidance by the relevant regulators. Only one sector—digital service providers, which are regulated by the Information Commissioner—has its set in legislation. All other regulators are able to react to the changing circumstances and amend the thresholds as necessary.
The Information Commissioner is limited by that retained EU law. That is due to how the NIS directive was established. In the EU, digital service providers are regulated at Union level, rather than at individual country level. For that reason, the thresholds that establish whether an incident has had a substantial impact on the security of a network and information system were not left to individual member states to establish, as is the case with all other sectors. These were set out in a Commission implementing regulation, which harmonised the rules across the whole EU. Following our withdrawal, it remained embedded in the UK statute book by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Therefore, the thresholds remain at the level suitable for the EU, which has a population of 500 million, not for the just under 70 million of our own population. That means that they are unable to be changed to reflect our new position as an independent country outside the EU.
Parameters such as the amount of users impacted or user hours lost from an incident are set far too high currently for the UK, and considerations relating to impacts on EU citizens are not appropriate for our own NIS legislation. The Information Commissioner has received only one report since we left the EU. That is not surprising if an incident must have a noticeable impact on an economy the size of the EU in order to be reported in the UK. Without incident reporting, the commissioner will not have an understanding of the threats to and impacts on the sector, and will not be able to identify threats, provide guidance or take enforcement action if appropriate. For the NIS regulations to remain effective in protecting the essential services provided, we have to be able to set the reporting thresholds at a suitable level for our own country. This statutory instrument is designed to resolve that issue by removing those deficient provisions in retained EU law and allowing the Information Commissioner to set the thresholds to a level that effectively reflects our position and size.
The enabling provisions under section 8 of the 2018 Act allow changes to be made to rectify EU exit-related deficiencies only. I am content that the amendments made in this statutory instrument do not introduce new policy, although we have ambitions in that regard; rather, they are meant to ensure that the original policy objective is achieved. The Information Commissioner has already carried out a consultation on the level of thresholds to be set to represent the UK market, and the practice of setting appropriate thresholds for reporting is already in place for every other competent authority. This statutory instrument will bring digital service providers in line with all other operators of essential services in the UK.
Additional amendments in the statutory instrument cover textual changes as a consequence of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. This includes a requirement for digital services providers to consider the geographic impact of an incident in relation to the UK rather than across the UK. The NIS regulations form part of the Government’s toolkit to protect digital services, which citizens rely on in their day-to-day lives, and help to support the functioning of the digital and physical economies. That is why it is essential that we maintain the framework for protecting our essential services and deter those who seek to act in a subversive manner towards them. For those who do unfortunately fall victim, it is necessary to provide support in guidance. To do this, competent authorities have to be informed of such incidents.
This statutory instrument incorporates much-needed amendments to the NIS legislative framework, which will lead to increased security of digital service providers and their network and information systems. Although the amendments are minor and technical in nature, they are none the less critical for maintaining the effectiveness of the NIS legislation and for providing the Information Commissioner with the right information to support digital services in the UK. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. May I start by saying that I hope that in the months ahead I can work constructively with the Minister in my new role? I accept that there will be times when we will disagree, but I hope that she will always know that that will be on matters of policy and never, ever personal.
We do not oppose the regulations, which address EU exit-related deficiencies in the retained EU legislation that regulates the security of network and information systems of core UK service providers. There are no specific points that I would like to raise in direct relation to the regulations, which seek to recognise the UK’s position outside the European Union and the necessary legislative changes that need to be addressed. I also note that no concerns were raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I would, however, like to make some more general observations on the SI itself, and I would be grateful to the Minister if she could answer my questions either now or in writing.
The prevalence of cyber-related attacks has only grown in recent years. In August it was reported that nine cyber-attacks on the UK’s transport infrastructure were missed by mandatory reporting laws due to the reporting thresholds being so high. To add further concern, the Government were alerted to those attacks only because the information was given voluntarily.
It is clear, given the UK’s position outside the European Union, that changes need to made to the setting of parameters for digital service providers, which is currently still retained in EU legislation. However, given that it has been over a year since the end of the transition period, there is concern that we are only now finding time to debate issues relating to our national cyber infrastructure. As noted in the SI, having the EU set the parameters for incident reporting by digital service providers does not work effectively for the UK as a stand-alone nation, as the Minister has touched on. The main issue is that the reporting threshold for EU nations is too high to trigger reporting in the UK. The Opposition recognise and agree that changes need to be made to reflect the UK outside the EU. We cannot have a situation where the Information Commissioner is not alerted to cyber incidents that have caused disruption to the activities of digital service providers, many of which are crucial to the smooth, day-to-day running of society.
The Minister has said that this statutory instrument is not going to be used as part of any future relationship agreement with the European Union. Cyber-attacks and breaches of digital infrastructure are not unique to one nation. Digital is a shared commodity, not bound by physical borders. Could the Minister elaborate on what discussions are being had with European neighbours on joint working reporting of cyber-attacks against digital service providers? Although I recognise the need for the UK to have its own reporting mechanism, close collaboration on shared security issues remains crucial.
Michael Fabricant
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not just about the European Union? The United Kingdom has just entered into an agreement with the state of Israel, which is perhaps, some would argue, the most advanced country in the world on cyber-security. Does he welcome that?
Chris Elmore
For the avoidance of doubt and for the record, I do welcome the collaborative agreement. Clearly, the issue of cyber-security applies beyond the European Union; in fact, it affects all nations around the world. What we are discussing today, however, as the Minister has said, is the need to improve the current state of play from when we left the European Union—the transition period ended over a year ago. Of course, I agree entirely that the more relationships we have in terms of improving our data and cyber-security, the better.
Chris Elmore
I am delighted.
Given that the proposed changes will increase the scope and responsibilities of the Information Commissioner’s Office, does the Minister believe that the Information Commissioner has enough staff and wider resource to complete those duties? The explanatory memorandum states that the next post-implementation review of the NIS regulations will take place by May 2022 and that subsequent reviews will take place no later than every five years. Given the rapid pace of change in innovation in digital services, will the Minister seek to ensure that reviews take place no later than every two years, to keep pace with any change in the sector?
Finally, the explanatory memorandum states:
“The legislation does not apply to activities that are undertaken by small businesses.”
I am sure that all Members present recognise that the pandemic has accelerated the growing trend for more and more businesses to move online, especially small business owners. What discussions are taking place to protect small businesses that are classed as digital service providers but are not recognised by the ICO as relevant data service providers, as they continue to grow in number? Beyond that, as I have said, we do not object to the regulations.
Julia Lopez
I thank members of the Committee for attending and for their patience in debating the regulations. I also welcome the hon. Member for Ogmore to his position. I am very glad that he supports the regulations, and I very much appreciate the warm welcome he gave me. I look forward to working with him collaboratively where we can and to addressing his concerns when he raises them.
I assure the hon. Gentleman on our general approach to cyber-security. We entirely understand how important this area is. To that end, this week we are launching a new national cyber strategy, which is a whole-of-Government approach but also a whole-of-society approach. Huge efforts are going to be required by each of us as citizens; otherwise, any vulnerability in the system will have an impact on all of us. As we have seen during the pandemic, more aspects of our lives have gone online, and with that comes a consequent risk.
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of joint reporting and collaboration. We held the future tech forum at the Science Museum a couple of weeks ago, and we started some of those discussions with ministerial counterparts in EU countries. There was an EU representative present and I look forward to working collaboratively with them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield was absolutely right to refer to the importance of the relationship with Israel. I met the ambassador when I was at the Cabinet Office and we talked about where we can collaborate more closely when it comes to cyber-technology, because it is such an important area. It is the area of the future, where I fear we will be fighting many of tomorrow’s battles.
We have been assured that the ICO has the resources to deal with the extra reporting. I also say to the hon. Member for Ogmore that we will consult on NIS regulations early in the new year. We will also be looking at expanding the list of people that this applies to. I entirely agree with him about the importance of dealing with small businesses, which are going to be holding increasing amounts of risk. We are doing a huge number of things in that regard, including improving the skills base from which they can recruit cyber expertise and introducing a new royal charter so that people can be assured of the cyber expertise that individuals hold. At the moment, that is a very messy landscape. I hope that that assures the hon. Gentleman on some of the initiatives that we are working on. If he has any further questions, I shall be happy to engage with him. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I can confirm that we are quorate. Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings and to maintain distancing as far as possible, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. I also remind Members that they are asked to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if they come on to the estate, either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Members should send their speaking notes by email to handardnotes@parliament.uk. Officials in the Gallery should communicate electronically with Ministers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021.
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. This statutory instrument, together with the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021, and the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021, which follows the negative procedure, are part of several measures through which the Government are seeking to address a heavy goods vehicle driver shortage.
The regulations were originally laid before Parliament on 16 September 2021 as the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021. However, the No. 2 regulations were not approved in both Houses in time to come into force on 15 November 2021 as intended. Since such affirmative statutory instruments cannot be amended once laid before Parliament in draft, we have taken action to lay the regulations afresh, as the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021. The No. 5 regulations are a replication of the No. 2 regulations, save for an updated title and coming-into-force provision.
The haulage sector has for some time been experiencing an acute shortage of heavy goods vehicle drivers worldwide. The coronavirus pandemic suspended driver testing for much of last year, which increased the shortage further. The shortage affects the supply chains of not only fresh food but fuel, medicines and medical equipment across Great Britain.
As hon. Members will be aware, we are working at pace to deliver Government interventions, including regulatory changes that could alleviate the HGV driver shortage. I recognise the Committee’s concern that evidence could not be provided; I reassure hon. Members that the Department for Transport takes seriously its responsibility with regard to evidence-based policy-making. I am pleased to report that an impact assessment has now been submitted to the Regulatory Policy Committee for scrutiny. I am grateful that these debates could be held at the earliest opportunity, so that we can address this issue as a matter of priority.
This statutory instrument is part of 32 Government interventions to help alleviate the haulier shortage. The overall aim of the SI is to increase the number of heavy goods vehicle drivers in Great Britain by increasing the number of test slots available to drivers wishing to pass the HGV driver test, while maintaining road safety standards following any changes made to the driving licence testing regime.
The intention of the No. 5 regulations is to remove the need for driving licence categories B and E—that is, car and trailer tests—which are currently required by car drivers who wish to tow a heavy trailer. Driving examiners have limited test availability, and this legislation would free up driver examiner time that could be reallocated to conducting HGV tests. That should provide additional availability of tests for potential HGV and bus drivers, to help lessen the driver shortage. For car drivers, the change in legislation will mean that they will be able to tow a heavier trailer—up to 3.5 tonnes or 3,500 kg— automatically once they hold a category B licence, without needing to take an additional B+E test.
Theory and practical training will continue to be recommended to help maintain driver safety on the roads. An accreditation scheme is being developed, with help from the trailer industry and training providers. The scheme will provide voluntary training opportunities for car drivers wishing to tow a trailer of any size for either recreational or business use. My officials have met with the all-party parliamentary group on trailer and towing safety to develop the outline of the scheme, and to consider core modules that would be applicable to all drivers who tow, as well as sector-specific modules. These might cover activities such as safely managing livestock and breakdown recovery towing.
We are already working with trainers and those in leisure and business to develop the trainer package. Together with these groups and the police, we will identify the additional data needed to monitor towing standards effectively. The scheme is planned to launch early next year and will focus, through the provision of specialised modules, on specific driver needs when towing different types of trailers. We will continue to recommend car drivers to undertake training on safely towing and managing trailers. We will encourage drivers through our existing campaigns, and we will work with leisure and towing groups to reach out with offers of training through their communications.
Road safety is, of course, of the utmost importance. That is why we have committed to reviewing this legislation at regular intervals—initially after three years have passed, and thereafter at five-year intervals. An impact assessment will be published early in the new year. Owing to road safety concerns, we decided to hold an additional review three years after legislative change, rather than after the standard five years. It is worth noting that around 6 million[Official Report, 15 December 2021, Vol. 705, c. 4MC.] drivers who passed their test before 1 January 1997 can already drive a car with a trailer without having to take a separate test. This change affords that same entitlement to drivers who passed the test after 1997.
We should be proud that the UK has some of the safest roads in the world. I reassure the Committee that our support for the “Tow Safe 4 Freddie” campaign will continue.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The Minister is making important points about this proposed legislation. Will she reassure me that the impact assessment that her officials will produce in January, after this instrument has come into effect, will include an assessment of how many training establishments that were established to provide training to drivers on towing vehicles, rather than offering more advanced heavy goods vehicle courses, will have gone out of business? A constituent of mine has set up a business and is of the opinion that none of his trainers will go on to train HGV drivers, because that is not what they want to do. The objective of this provision is right: we should try to increase the capacity for HGV driver training. However, I am concerned that we may inadvertently shut down viable businesses across the country.
Trudy Harrison
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I will endeavour to ensure that the impact assessment takes that figure into consideration. We are working with training providers, and we are also looking at potential compensation schemes. My right hon. Friend should, in the first instance, suggest that his constituent accesses the helpline via the Government website.
We should be proud that the UK has some of the safest roads in the world. I referred to the “Tow Safe 4 Freddie” campaign. This will continue. We will draw attention to the importance of motorists doing safety checks whenever they are towing. The removal of the separate test for car drivers wishing to tow a trailer or caravan frees up some 30,000 vocational test slots annually. That equates to up to 550 extra tests a week, or a 37% increase in weekly tests, relative to pre-pandemic levels. This SI supports the streamlining of testing to increase the number of HGV tests taking place. Thanks to the great efforts of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency staff, the backlog of 55,000 driving licence applications for heavy goods vehicle drivers has been eliminated. These are now being processed within the normal turnaround time of five working days.
Keeping our roads safe is of paramount importance, and we will monitor the situation and act if needed, if our roads become less safe. This SI is just one of 32 Government interventions to tackle this issue, to help reduce the strain on our national supply chains, which is affecting every aspect of our daily lives.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, for the first time.
Our views on this legislation are already on record, so I will not reiterate all the points made in previous debates. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South is here, and I am sure she will have a few things to say about the regulations. We on the Opposition Benches understand the Minister’s rationale for this decision, as the regulations make a technical amendment, but it would be remiss of me not to ask a few questions. We all want the HGV shortage to be addressed. Let us be clear: that shortage has been many months, if not years, in the making. Successive Conservative Governments have had the opportunity to address the problem, and have so far failed to get a permanent, workable solution.
As a result of that mismanagement, MPs are today being asked to make a decision that has significant risks. What do we know? Some 30% of drivers fail the B+E test, and since the introduction of the test in 1997, road safety has improved. Ministers simply do not know the risks associated with this decision, and whether a younger cohort more prone to accidents will begin towing as a result of it. These are serious questions that need to be addressed.
It is not acceptable for MPs to be asked to take a decision blindly, when the Department’s impact assessment of the implications for road safety is either not completed or not being shared with Parliament. The ability of this place to scrutinise the Government has been compromised as a result. We did not hear answers when the matter was debated in the Chamber a few weeks ago. Given that implications of the decision are as yet unknown to Parliament, I would like to press the Minister on the review period. A review of the implications of the decision will take place only every three years. That cannot be right. I ask the Minister to consider a shorter period, and to update the House on towing accident figures quarterly; that will give some reassurance that those involved will be in a position to undertake remedial action swiftly if a problem emerges.
In the absence of an impact assessment, can the Minister explain the thinking that underpins the safety assessment? Baroness Vere said in her letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that there is not currently any statistical evidence to suggest that competence and skills will worsen if drivers do not take a statutory test to tow a trailer. What statistical evidence did Ministers assess to come to that conclusion? Are they conducting an assessment of whether there will be a change in the trend in the age distribution of drivers towing trailers if all current and future car licence holders become automatically eligible to tow, and will that be published?
Although we will not oppose the regulations, we would welcome, either here or in writing, answers to the very serious questions that we have for Ministers, and we would like to put on record our serious concern about the way in which the regulations have been managed.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I rise to speak on behalf of my constituents, but also as chair of the all-party towing and trailer safety group. I put on record my strong opposition to the regulations on the Floor of the House on 8 November. Since then, the Government have created such chaos, through the announcement in September of this measure, which has still not been brought into law, that I have frankly become less assured, and more concerned, as the weeks have gone on. We are now unleashing thousands of untrained, unsafe and unqualified drivers of trailers on to our roads. It really does beggar belief that we are still doing this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South mentioned the answers Baroness Vere of Norbiton gave to questions tabled by the noble Baroness Randerson and Lord Bassam. I do not know if you have seen answers like this, Mr Dowd, in your time in the House, but the answers we have had to questions asking the Government
“what data they hold on the safety impact of the B+E car and trailer test; and what criteria they will use to review the impact on safety of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021 after three years”
beggar belief. The answer states:
“There is not currently any statistical evidence to categorically say that competence and skills will worsen if drivers do not take a statutory test to tow a trailer.”
In that case, frankly, I do not know why we are taking a driving test at all. Baroness Vere goes on to say:
“Road safety has significantly improved over recent decades for several reasons”—
we do not dispute that—
“and it is therefore difficult to identify how much the car trailer test…has made a difference since it was introduced in 1997…The number of trailer accidents is low, with the proportion of accidents of cars/vans towing a trailer compared to all car/van accidents, as roughly 0.45% in 2019.”
Over the past four years, the all-party parliamentary group on trailer and towing safety has worked steadfastly with the Department for Transport to gather data and information. The problem with further improving safety is that there has not been any more data and information.
Baroness Vere goes on to say:
“In respect of the demographics of the drivers towing trailers, our statistics show that individuals generally only start getting their car and trailer licence (Category B+E licences) from their late 30s and 40s onwards”.
If this is such a crisis, what is stopping drivers in their 20s from driving these trailers without a test? I have the support of the Association of British Insurers and of the Road Haulage Association, because they know that it is not safe—with all due respect to 22-year-olds—to put a 22-year-old on the roads, untested and unqualified, driving those trailers. I have spoken to very many people in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s, including people like me who, as the Minister has said, do not need the test. None of us thinks that we are competent to drive those trailers without training and testing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South said, we already know that 30% of people who have been trained and tested fail.
As I said in November, this move is reckless and dangerous. We know that 50% of trailers on the roads are already not compliant, as shown by the APPG’s work over the past few years, and that 30% of people fail the test. We know that the Government do not know the impact of their decisions, and that the so-called review after three years is a hollow commitment based on no data. I hope that the Minister will respond to my hon. Friend by explaining what on earth the criteria will be that are used to assess these regulations when they are reviewed in three years’ time. I will be here in three years’ time, and will hold the Government to their commitments. I promised my constituents Scott and Donna Hussey that I would do all I can to honour the memory of their son through “Tow Safe 4 Freddie”. I am grateful for the fact that the Government will continue their commitment to that campaign, but I am really quite appalled that we are back here again today, and I sincerely hope that, as a result of these regulations, we do not see the sort of reckless and unsafe driving on the roads that I fear we will.
Trudy Harrison
I will try to give Members some reassurance. As I have said, these regulations will free up 36,000 tests per year—550 extra tests per week—for heavy goods vehicle drivers who are bringing medicines, medical supplies and food to every part of our country. We had 9,541 responses to this consultation, which were mostly positive, and we will publish the full response in the impact assessment early next year. We will continually review this issue and take action when needed.
It is also worth pointing out that the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency works throughout the year to ensure as far as possible that trailers, including caravans and trailers up to 3,500 kg—which I can tow, because I am 45 years old and passed my test before 1 January 1997—are roadworthy. To provide some indication of the work the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency is doing, 3,219 tests were carried out on those trailers between September 2019 and September 2021, and only 50% passed. Some 732 tests were carried out on caravans, and only 12% passed, so I am setting out the need for further accreditation. Importantly, that can be accreditation that is suitable for the particular trailer that the motorist will be towing. It will also cover the maintenance of that trailer, which the test did not previously do.
I commend the hon. Member for Bristol South on the work she has done, as well as the work of the APPG and, of course, the “Tow Safe 4 Freddie” campaign. Perhaps early in 2022, particularly at the time of year when people are thinking about taking their caravans out or doing a tip run with their trailer for the first time in months, we will be able to work together to raise awareness of the benefits of training for towing and—just as importantly—maintaining trailers. That is what these regulations will achieve: the kind of accreditation that is suitable for the types of trailers and vehicles that are being used on the UK’s roads.
I have set out the reasons why we are doing this, so I will close by saying that if there are further aspects of the detail of the review that I have not been able to cover during today’s debate, I am very happy to respond in writing to the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ilford South. I commend the regulations, which were laid before the House on 23 November, to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Pine Trees development
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
Online Animal Sales: Regulation
(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
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate. This is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. This can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 587654, relating to regulation of online animal sales.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. This petition, entitled “#Reggieslaw—Regulate online animal sales”, closed with over 109,000 signatures, and states:
“Given how many animals are sold online, we want Government to introduce regulation of all websites where animals are sold. Websites should be required to verify the identity of all sellers, and for young animals for sale pictures with their parents be posted with all listings.”
I volunteered to lead on this petition because my daughter had a dog called Reggie. He was part of our family for many years, and we loved him so much that it broke our hearts when he tragically died from cancer. I met with the petitioner, Richard, who told me that he started the petition after he bought his 12-week-old Labrador puppy Reggie through a reputable website for his partner for Christmas, and then realised that he had unknowingly contributed to illegal puppy farming. Richard, who is with us in the Public Gallery tonight, bravely concedes that he should have done more research before buying Reggie and should have walked away, which would have prevented the seller from getting more money to continue acts of animal cruelty. However, Reggie would still have died.
Richard gave Reggie love, dignity and pain relief throughout his very short life. Reggie fell ill 12 hours after Richard took him home, and died from parvovirus after two days. When Richard bought Reggie, he thought that Reggie was from St Helens, Merseyside, but when he went back to the address where he had bought Reggie, he found that the seller had gone. The microchip number for Reggie did not match the documentation and was registered to Dublin, Ireland, so Richard believes that Reggie was illegally shipped to the UK. Richard started Justice For Reggie to raise awareness of the dangers of online animal sales, which is part of the Animal Welfare Alliance, which he also set up and is made up of a number of animal websites.
Richard would like the Government to establish a regulatory board to regulate all animal sales websites, and that these websites should be verified before they are set up. He would like it to be a legal requirement to have pictures of puppies suckling on their mother, and to identify online sellers, in that every seller should produce a photo ID and two proof-of-address documents to prove by whom, and from where, the pet is sold. Last week, Richard walked 200 miles from his home in Wigan to hand in a petition to the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street, and I know that some Members who will speak in tonight’s debate met Richard at Downing Street to show their support.
The Government responded to the petition on 1 July 2021, saying:
“The Government shares the public’s high regard for animal welfare. We endorse the Pet Advertising Advisory Group’s work and support their actions to improve the traceability of online vendors.”
Their response mentioned the UK Government’s Petfished campaign, and said that the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill will end puppy smuggling, as it
“includes powers to introduce new restrictions on pet travel and the commercial import of pets on welfare grounds, via secondary legislation.”
It went on to say that the UK Government’s pet theft taskforce is considering different measures to stop pet theft, including the regulation of online sales, a voluntary code of practice and a certification scheme for compliant websites to encourage sites to increase checks. Sales should be cashless to improve traceability. It also said that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs planned to launch an online advertising programme to assess whether the Government need to strengthen the regulatory framework around online advertising, with a consultation expected before the end of this year.
I am sure Members are aware that animal welfare is a devolved matter. There is no specific legislation on acquiring a pet online; however, the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 cover, among other things, dog and cat breeding and selling animals as pets, as licensed by local authorities. Dog breeding is defined as “three or more” litters a year or where that is regarded as a business by a local authority. “Selling animals as pets” covers selling and selling on, whether bred by the seller or not. The regulations require an advertisement for an animal sale to include the licence number, the licensing authority, the age of the animal, a photo, country of origin and residence, and require that the animal be in good health. Dogs must be sold in the presence of the purchaser and from the premises in which they are kept.
In April 2020, Lucy’s law amended the regulations to prohibit the commercial sale of dogs and cats under six months other than by the breeder. However, the regulations do not apply to private animal sellers. Perhaps the Minister will consider amending them to include private sales. I have met a number of animal organisations to listen to their views on animal online sales, and there was broad support for reform.
PAAG, the Pet Advertising Advisory Group, was set up in 2001 to combat growing concerns about irresponsible advertising of pets for sale, rehoming and exchange. It is made up of 25 animal welfare organisations, trade associations and veterinary bodies, and is endorsed by DEFRA and the devolved Administrations. PAAG is concerned about poor welfare standards, lack of information about a pet’s history, offloading sick pets, dealers posing as private sellers, and pets ending up with unsuitable owners who, for example, use them in dog fights.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
What is concerning in the discussions we have had is that, currently, websites are not a safe place to buy a pet. It is estimated that 92% of pets are sold online, with most taking little responsibility in the sale. Does my hon. Friend that that is something we have to deal with robustly?
Christina Rees
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who has been a staunch campaigner for animal welfare for many years. I am sure the Minister is listening to his point.
PAAG has set out 27 voluntary minimum standards that advertisers should comply with, and some of the UK’s largest classified websites have agreed to do so. PAAG told me that Richard’s petition includes one of PAAG’s minimum standards: that all breeders should include a recognisable photo of young animals, including dogs and cats with their mother. That has been implemented by Pets4Homes and Preloved, which remove adverts that do not adhere to that.
PAAG will continue to engage with other websites on implementing that more widely. PAAG believes its work is vital, given the lack of regulation of online advertising and sale of pets. Dogs Trust asks for PAAG’s voluntary minimum standards to become a legal requirement for all adverts of pets for sale, and asks for a centralised, publicly accessible list of commercial and private registered sellers and breeders. It believes that a complete ban on advertising pets for sale online would not eradicate the challenges of poor animal welfare, impulsive pet purchases and unscrupulous sellers seeking to profit from selling animals. Dedicated consumer awareness campaigns will be more likely to encourage responsible advertising and purchasing in the long term. There is no jurisdiction over websites based outside the UK, however, so a ban may have the unintended consequence that websites move their operations overseas to avoid having to abide by such a law.
The trust asks that anyone breeding, selling or transferring the ownership of a puppy aged up to six months old, regardless of any financial gain, should be required to be registered, that anyone doing so for more than one litter of puppies should require a licence, and that all breeders should display their unique registration or licence number on any advert. It also asks for a central, publicly accessible list of all registered and licenced breeders or, failing that, a single point of entry for the databases operated by individual local authorities, which would allow purchasers to verify where they are buying a dog from—for example, by verifying the postcode. It also asks for a single database or point of contact for the 15 national microchip databases, and for DEFRA to create a system whereby websites can verify the details on a microchip. The trust also states that action should be taken against sellers who get around the prohibition of the sale of pets on platforms such as Facebook and Instagram by using emojis in place of words such as “for sale”, not including the sale price and speaking with potential buyers in closed groups or private messages, which are not monitored.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals told me that demand for puppies rose exponentially during the pandemic, as people wanted companionship or exercise during lockdown. During the first lockdown, Google searches for “puppies near me” increased by 650%, with 15,000 searches in July 2020 compared with 2,000 in January 2020. The prices for some popular breeds escalated. For example, the price of French bulldogs increased from £1,500 pre pandemic to £7,000. Unbelievable. English breeders could not satisfy the demand, so trade in imported dogs escalated by 43% between May 2019 and May 2020, with many sold online. Although the regulatory framework has changed considerably in the past five years, the RSPCA believes that there are still loopholes in the law and, most significantly, huge issues with enforcement, especially in the complicated online marketplace. Enforcement should be a priority.
It is still too easy to find online adverts for pets that do not comply with the 2018 regulations. As lockdown has shown, sellers and buyers are ignoring the rules on conducting sales in person. It is not clear that online adverts that break the rules are routinely removed by websites and social media platforms, and the sellers behind them are not being punished. The RSPCA asks for more resources for local authorities, which lack resources and expertise, and more funding for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs tax investigations into serious pet selling, which often involves large amounts of money. Border Force should prioritise the illegal import of animals.
The Kennel Club told me that when the licence regulations changed in 2018 from five to three puppy litters a year, reputable breeders complained of too much bureaucracy, which resulted in a 10% decrease in puppies being registered with the Kennel Club. It has evidence of disreputable sellers using fake names and false Airbnb addresses to sell puppies from. Disreputable sellers want to offload puppies quickly, so they sell the popular breeds. The British Veterinary Association is a member of PAAG and fully supports PAAG’s position on online animal sales.
The placement and content of online advertising is regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority, which it does by enforcing the code of non-broadcast advertising, sales, promotion and direct marketing, known as the CAP code. This self-regulatory system states that all online adverts are expected to be
“legal, decent, honest and truthful”.
Online advertising includes marketing and communications on companies’ own websites, and other third party spaces under their control, such as Twitter and Facebook. The Advertising Standards Authority website states that to report a dubious advert after the fact, someone would need a photo—a screenshot of the advert—and to complete an online form. However, it also states that it is impossible to check all online adverts because there are millions every year. The ASA can refer advertisers who persistently break the CAP code to trading standards departments in local authorities for enforcement, under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. However, these apply only to businesses. As I have said, local authority trading standards departments are under-staffed and under-resourced, and their priority during the pandemic is enforcing covid restrictions—or, as I call them, covid protections.
I conclude by urging the Minister to support Reggie’s law to prevent “dogfishing”, which is a term for when a person tries to mislead someone into buying a dog that might not be as advertised. For example, the dog might be a different gender or breed—or, as in the tragic case of Reggie, it may be seriously unwell. I ask the Minister to answer the requests from the animal organisations that I have presented.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
If everyone sticks to about five minutes, we will fit everyone in who wants to speak in this debate.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. May I start by saying how good it is to see Rick sitting at the back? I hope his feet have recovered, because he has done so much to highlight this cause. I remember joining him on a Zoom call late one evening back in April during lockdown, and hearing the terribly sad story, which the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) outlined, and seeing some of the pictures of Reggie. No animal lover could fail to be impacted by the story that Rick has told.
I am really pleased to be able to contribute to this debate, because as a two-time dog owner, I think there is something very special about animals, particularly dogs. They give us companionship and loyalty. When they are ill, we want to do everything we can to try and protect them, look after them and make them better. Particularly when it is a puppy, it is such an emotive issue that not being able to do anything is heartbreaking. This House needs to be able to highlight this issue and to talk about unregulated advertising.
I want to praise and thank the team at Justice For Reggie for the work they have done in bringing national attention to the issue of puppy farming. I have seen Rick on the TV more than I have seen the Prime Minister over the last couple of days; he has appeared on Sky News and a variety of other channels, with the dog at his side, to talk about these issues, capture the nation’s attention and highlight the issue of puppy farming and dodgy advertising; and that is what this is: dodgy advertising.
This is an emotive issue, and it is an issue for families up and down the UK. In my constituency of Warrington South, I have heard from families who have been personally affected. They have purchased a dog and within a couple of weeks that dog has become desperately ill. They do not know what to do or where to go to.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Will the hon. Member commend the work of the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare Foundation, who have come up with a puppy contract? This contract could empower someone looking to purchase a puppy or a dog, and help them avoid some of the pitfalls that come from dealing with irresponsible breeders.
Andy Carter
I absolutely will, and I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I will come on to some of the other charities and animal campaigning groups that have done so much to highlight the issue. I remember saying to Rick early on that if we can build a coalition, that is a great opportunity to put a strong message to parliamentarians and the wider public that this is happening.
It is worth saying at the start that the Government have done some very good work in this area, particularly through Lucy’s law, which means that anyone wanting to get a new puppy or kitten must buy it directly from the breeder, with some significant fines and sentences for people who break the rules. However, as the hon. Member for Neath mentioned, we can and should go further on some of the legislation. While progress on Lucy’s law has been encouraging, there are difficulties with the application of the legislation, primarily in stopping the importation of illegally farmed puppies from outside the UK. As we heard in Reggie’s case, it sounds as though he was imported from Ireland into the country. The ease and popularity of the internet means that impulse-buying pets has become an appealing option, with people able to search and find an animal for sale at the click of a button.
The lure of a quick, unregulated sale also attracts many unscrupulous breeders and dealers to websites and other platforms. As I mentioned earlier, people in my Warrington South constituency have told me that they have lost money after responding to posts advertising dogs, puppies, cats and kittens on social media, online marketplaces and other pet-selling platforms. They meet someone in a car park, hand over cash and then they disappear, or they put down a deposit and never see that person again. We must take steps to stop that happening. In many cases, animal lovers are being encouraged to hand over funds as a deposit and are presented with cute pictures of animals only for nothing to be delivered. Thousands of times a day, we see online sites advertising and selling puppies without the parents being present in any photos. That is a general theme we are seeing in online sales not just here, but across Europe.
I read an article this morning in the Metro, which put it well:
“People are profiting from misery”,
and the whole practice of online pet selling is, I am afraid, a very shady place.
Dog thefts are also a consequence of rapidly rising prices, and the pandemic has only sought to increase opportunities for criminals to exploit pet owners and families. According to the Pet Food Manufacturers Association, as of March this year, an estimated 3.2 million households had acquired a new pet during lockdown. That is a huge market for criminals across Europe, and we must get tougher in catching them and regulating the online space. Estimates suggest that as many as 88% of puppies born in Great Britain are bred by unlicensed breeders. We need websites to commit to following at least the minimum PAAG standards. It is important that all adverts display the age of the animal advertised. While the rules of social media sites are clear that such sales are completely prohibited, people have ways to get round them. The reality is that sellers of banned or dangerous dogs can often be found lurking in the comments section of images of adorable puppies in closed groups.
I welcome the priority set out for sellers to display their licence number on all adverts. There are problems with ensuring that licences are properly granted and that local authorities have adequate resources to assess the applications and the locations of those licences. Even so, many sellers fail to display the number, making it more difficult for consumers to know who they are buying from. I ask the Minister to look at what action can be taken to encourage more sellers to display their licence details.
As the hon. Member for Neath mentioned, local authorities are currently in charge of licensing, but it is extremely difficult for them to tackle illegal trading on such a scale, because of the lack of resources they have to monitor the enormous volume of online sales. Indeed, local authorities are unable to monitor the trade offline too, or to provide qualified individuals to assess welfare needs. Along with a stricter licensing regime, we need professionals who are able to adequately determine whether a licence should be granted. Unfortunately, local authority officials who inspect places where animals are sold are not necessarily trained specifically in detecting animal welfare issues. That is where we need, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) mentioned, the work of the RSPCA and other organisations to be included too. Another important point is that the individuals who buy such animals are not aware that the seller should be licensed.
To conclude, I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the request that the Government introduce further regulation for all websites where animals are sold, including by private individuals. I again congratulate all those at the Justice For Reggie campaign on the incredible work they have done to highlight this issue.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for having opened today’s debate on e-petition 587654, and the over 100,000 signatories who have brought this important issue before the House. As an animal lover, I fully support any measures that will strengthen animal welfare laws, and I commend Richard Ackers on his dedication in pursuing Reggie’s law. I am saddened by the circumstances that led him here in the first place—circumstances that were traumatic for Richard and his family, of course, but were also devastatingly cruel for Reggie, the adorable 12-week-old puppy whose death sits at the very heart of this campaign.
Many people across the UK have found themselves with a surplus of free time over the past 20 months or so. We are a nation of animal lovers, and millions found themselves in a position to take on a pet they might not have otherwise had time for. Adoption rates soared; there was also a huge increase in puppy sales, and naturally, it became a sellers’ market. It has not just been puppies such as Reggie, though: there has been an increase in ownership of other pets, such as cats and rabbits. Unfortunately, people will always look to take advantage of such an increase in demand. Unscrupulous sellers putting profit before the wellbeing of animals has always been an issue: I would like to think that those sellers are in the minority, but that does not detract from the need to do everything we can to stop them.
Existing licensing laws go some way towards providing regulatory oversight, but it has become clear that those laws are no longer enough. Sales made through online platforms by unlicensed private sellers are prevalent. The issue is not isolated to pets—I have spoken before about the need for better regulation of online marketplaces for children’s toys—but the sale of live and sentient beings, often suffering, cannot continue to fly under the radar unaddressed. The Pet Advertising Advisory Group has done some excellent work on this issue, developing 27 minimum standards that should be adhered to by online adverts for young animals, and its collaborative approach has brought some of the UK’s biggest online platforms on board. Those standards remain voluntary, though, meaning that not all websites have opted to implement them. I know that DEFRA supports and encourages take-up of those standards, but will the Minister commit to legislating for them?
I also want to highlight the issue of cat breeding, which is sometimes overshadowed by the focus on puppy farms and smuggling. This year’s Cats Protection “Cats and Their Stats” report found that there had been a huge increase in online sales of cats, with 68% of new owners purchasing their cat online. As I touched on, this has led to skyrocketing cat prices, with the average price almost £150 higher than in 2020. I am very pleased to be able to say that cat breeding is regulated in Scotland, but am disappointed in equal measure that Scotland is the only part of the UK that does so. As of September this year, anyone breeding three or more litters in a year must be licensed. The PAAG agrees that cat breeding should be regulated, although most of its members believe that the threshold should be two or more litters annually. It also generally supports registration of breeders of one litter, although Cats Protection has concerns that this could have unintended consequences, such as an increase in abandoned kittens as a result of people finding themselves with an unexpected litter. Kittens do not fetch as high a price as puppies, so I understand that concern.
Scotland is also the only nation in the UK that regulates rabbit breeding. That threshold is a little higher—six or more litters of kits per year—presumably recognising that there is a reason behind the phrase, “breeding like rabbits”. Could the Minister tell us about her Department’s plans to regulate sales of cats, rabbits, and other common pets? Has the Department engaged with its Scottish counterparts to inform those plans?
To conclude, the Government’s initial response to the petition indicates positive forward movement. However, the position that advertising and trading standards sit within the remit of the relevant non-ministerial bodies is disappointing. These bodies must first have the legislative framework to work within, and that responsibility sits with Ministers.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
Bonnie came to us when she was about seven years old. She was dumped in a field, with three other dogs, in the west midlands. She was emaciated, traumatised and had quite obviously been used for puppy breeding. Her body was covered in scars and her feet were rotten from the urine that she had been paddling in, in the cage or shed that she had been born in.
That is the background to the dear little puppies that are sold online; that is where they come from. It is misery. They are then laundered, fraudulently, through breeding bitches, presented as the mother of the litter. It does not matter much whether they come from Wales or England, or, as many do, from Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland or mainland Europe. A lot of them are in the country illegally and many are carrying diseases.
These “dog is for life, not just for Christmas” dogs and puppies, are often bought before Christmas and, within two or three days, people such as my eldest son, who is a vet in practice, are asked to pick up the bits —the bits of a dying puppy while a little girl is in tears having been given the animal for Christmas. That is what we are dealing with, so what are we going to do about it?
Personally, I would like to ban the sale of all sentient beings online, but I have to accept that that horse has probably left the stable long ago. We are now living in an age of electronic sales, so it has got to be right that each and every person, whether they are selling as breeders, commercially or “privately,” are licensed and identifiable.
Andy Carter
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be some responsibility with the online platforms for looking at what is going on in that space? Having worked in the broadcast space, I remember selling pets on air was prohibited and there were certain regulations for selling in newspapers. It seems to me that the online space is a wild west where there is not really any regulation by those platform owners.
Sir Roger Gale
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As we know, these online platforms are notoriously reluctant to take responsibility for anything much, if they can get away with it. I believe that the online platforms should have a responsibility for checking the licences of the people who are selling, not just with this but with a lot of other products as well, before they are allowed to sell anything.
I commend Rick Ackers for promoting Reggie’s law and the thousands of people who have signed the petition. Rick’s sore feet will not be going anywhere, unless we get some legislation. We owe it to a lot of people to make sure that we get this properly under control once and for all.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell and to speak in the debate today, and especially to follow the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who I know is a passionate life-long campaigner for animal welfare, just like myself.
As hon. Members across the House well know, we are a proud nation of animal lovers. Animal welfare is an issue that cuts across political divides, and I am so pleased to see Members from across the House calling for urgent reform and regulation of the sale of animals online.
Those of us with pets know first hand the joy and excitement of bringing home a new cat, dog or rabbit to become a member of the family. I am becoming something of a broken record, but bringing home Dotty and Dora—my Jack Russell puppies—nine years ago was an incredibly exciting time for my family. I was lucky: Dotty and Dora came from a friend up the road whose dog had just had puppies; I knew they had been looked after, and they had stayed with their mum until they were big enough to leave safely.
However, in the nine years since, there has been a huge shift in the way people acquire animals. The most popular way to get a new pet is online, with some 92% of all pet sales happening online via websites which allow for third-party sales or on social media. While the vast majority of people looking to get a pet that way do their best to make sure it has been properly looked after and is the right age to leave its mother, there are many tragic cases of animals being bred or transported to the UK in horrible circumstances, and then sold on to unsuspecting customers online. In the worst instances—in cases such as Reggie’s—those animals are simply too sick to survive, leaving behind devastated families.
Last week, I was honoured to join the team behind the Reggie’s law campaign at 10 Downing Street to hand their petition—which received more than 100,000 signatures —to the Prime Minister. They have turned their tragedy into a really powerful campaign. It is wonderful to see Richard and the team here today, after he walked an incredible 232 miles from his home to London to raise awareness of this important issue and to raise money to support animal charities.
One of the beneficiaries of Richard’s fundraising is Hope Rescue, a dog rescue charity working across south Wales that operates from a rescue centre in Llanharan, just across the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore). I visited the charity a few months ago, and saw first hand the incredible work it does looking after rescued and abandoned dogs. I saw one five-week old puppy that had been rescued from an illegal puppy farm only a few days earlier, but he was one of the lucky ones: he is now in a place where he is loved and cared for, and has luckily suffered no long-term damage as a result of his start in life.
As Members well know, there is already a significant amount of regulation across the UK to control the sale of pets online, which, in England and Wales, is set out in the respective licensing of activities involving animals regulations, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees). Although the regulations are devolved, their provisions on pet sales are broadly the same. They require all advertisements for pets—online and offline—to display the licence number and issuing local authority, as well as a recognisable photo and the age of the animal. For dogs specifically, the regulations require the sale to be completed in person, not online, at the site where the dog was kept and, in the case of puppies, the animal to be seen with its mother.
Lucy’s law also bans the third-party sale of puppies and kittens in both England and Wales. Such animals should therefore be sold only by the person who bred them and, in Wales, from the breeders’ premises. However, it is clear from Reggie’s tragic story, and as hon. Members have said, that those regulations are simply not working well enough.
A quick online search shows that a major issue with the regulations is that they are simply not being enforced properly, which has only been exacerbated by the explosion of interest in buying a pet during lockdown. Local authorities have seen their funding slashed over the last decade, and over the last 18 months they have faced enormous challenges because of the pandemic. While I recognise that policing and enforcement is not a key responsibility of the Minister’s Department, I am hugely concerned that not enough is being done to tackle this all-important issue.
I commend the Government’s petfishing campaign and recognise that public awareness of the things to look for is vital. However, until bad actors are stopped from making huge amounts of money selling animals illegally online, there will be more sad stories like Reggie’s. I support the calls in the petition to require people who sell animals online to verify their identity, and I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the Government’s policy on that matter.
I also urge the Minister to work with her counterparts across Government and with the devolved Governments to make enforcing policies on animal welfare a priority, both at home and at the border. Without swift action, there will sadly be many more Reggies and many more Ricks and families like his forced to contend with losing a beloved family pet in horrible circumstances.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Unusually, I do not think I can disagree with a single thing that has been said in the Chamber today. As I look around the Chamber at the colleagues who are going to contribute, I do not think I will disagree with anything they say either, but do not test me too much.
It was a pleasure to be with Ricky and several colleagues outside No. 10 in the pouring rain. The longer we stayed, the more it rained; it was horrendous. To get 100,000 signatures from one person’s experience means that that experience touched the nation. It did so, as we have already heard, because we are a country—a United Kingdom —of animal lovers. I have seen more people get agitated about an animal being hurt than about people hurting themselves or other people. In many ways, that is right, because the animals cannot defend themselves.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) said, puppy farms are the most abhorrent industry out there. When I was a very young lad, I used to work in Petticoat Lane, Brick Lane, in north London, where puppies were sold at the side of the road in cages. They had obviously come from puppy farms, way back then, 50-odd years ago. We banned that; we stopped that. But the marketplaces that were there off Petticoat Lane and other markets around the country, in all colleagues’ constituencies, are now online. It is fundamentally unacceptable for platforms or marketplaces or whatever they want to call themselves today to say, “Hold up! It’s too difficult to monitor this,” just like it is too difficult for them to pay some tax occasionally. They spend untold amounts of money making sure they get around that sort of regulation, and it is about time that we put regulations in place not after the fact but as these things are happening, today.
I commend the Government and the Minister for the work on Lucy’s law; it was life-changing for a lot of people. What is also life-changing for a lot of people is when, in good faith, they see a puppy online with its gorgeous little eyes, and its mummy sitting there looking after it and snuggling up so that it can have its milk, but it is not the puppy that they get and it was not its mother giving it milk. I have constituents who say to me that when they go with their children to collect the puppy that they bought online, and there is the little puppy—in a car park, because, of course, something is going on in the house, or else they have been shown mum, but mum is nowhere near the puppies—and within months, and sometimes within days, the puppy is not only ill but is not actually what they thought they had bought in the first place. I have a constituent who bought a whippet. It is the biggest whippet ever seen now and it has clearly been cross-bred. People are petrified of going back, even if they know who the seller might be, because these people are serious criminals. Let’s not beat around the bush—they are criminals.
Peter Dowd
If the law were passed, it would be an exemplar for other countries across the world; it would send the message out. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a win-win situation, both for the consumer—the person buying the dog—and more importantly for the dogs and the animals themselves?
Sir Mike Penning
I completely agree. In fact, it would be a win for everybody if we get this right, including for the Inland Revenue, because none of these people pay any tax. It would be a complete win for the animal—not just for the puppy, but for where it came from, that puppy farm. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) said she had lovely Jack Russells. I saw some footage of a bitch that came on heat and they put her in a shed with three or four male stud dogs, to make sure that she had puppies within a few weeks. That animal nearly never survived, let alone gave birth. Those things are happening; these people are criminals. Although we quite rightly say that we need to give more power to local authorities, we need to give them the expertise and ammunition to scare the criminals out of the marketplace. At the same time, the people providing that marketplace need to close it down.
In the world we live in today, animals will be bought online, and the pandemic increased the number of people going online. I went through trauma—absolute trauma—at home, because we lost our dog. It is the first time in my life that we have not had a dog at home. She was 22 and a dachshund—before they were fashionable, as they are at the moment—and we lost her. At home, both my daughters and my wife are saying, “Let’s get a puppy. We’re at home. We can look after her now.” I stood my ground, for one simple reason: we are not at home now.
If people go to any of the rescue centres, they will see that there are thousands of animals there now. The people who got the animals were in the right frame of mind at the time. Admittedly, lockdown put a lot of us into very difficult times. At the time, it was the right thing to do, but now it is not. If someone goes to a rescue centre, they will not be able to just pick an animal up and walk away. The staff will check the person out and ensure that the animal is healthy, and that is what we should be doing today. I say this to the Minister. It may be difficult, but lots of things are difficult in government. That is why we are in government—to sort these things out and to sort the online market in animals out. It can be done if there is a will, and there is a will in this room today.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to speak in this important debate. I, too, thank the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for introducing the debate, but most importantly I thank Richard Ackers, or Rick as he is better known, and the Reggie’s law team for their courage, passion, compassion and determination to bring this matter into focus and before the House today through their petition, tireless campaigning and a more than 200-mile walk from Wigan to deliver the petition. It was an honour to join Rick as he delivered it to No. 10 last week.
There can surely be no more noble pursuit than seeking to protect those who are otherwise defenceless against tyranny. That is what we are concerned with today—the tyrannical abuse of power against defenceless creatures and what action we can take to limit, prevent and ultimately stamp out such cruel practices.
Like many families, mine was blessed with a new puppy during the pandemic. Reflecting back, I realise that our wee puppy could so easily have suffered the same fate as Rick’s Reggie. We found his advert online, we visited the seller and—despite asking all the reasonable questions about the location of the mother—once we had seen the pup, we melted and just accepted the assurances that we were given that mum was resting because she was tired from suckling. Thankfully, our wee Malu is fine and is now the boss of all he surveys.
Rick’s family were not so fortunate. Since the loss of Reggie in December 2020, Rick and the Justice For Reggie team have been working with other distressed families to highlight and uncover the facts about the illegal puppy trade, illegal online sales and the mental health impact that has on families. Their work aims to use this tragedy to deliver positive legislation by gaining the support of Parliament, and it is great to see cross-party support today.
What will Reggie’s law do? It will incorporate regulations to provide a safe buying platform for potential buyers of animals sold online on animal selling sites. It is far too easy to sell a pet. It requires only an email address and a burner phone. Rick has found that too many online pet selling sites are reluctant to engage in improving standards of online animal sales and welfare. The law would require all online pet selling platforms to support a comprehensive ID check of the seller behind every pet, and require evidence of the mum to be submitted, whether by photo ID or other means. I suggest today that that should be tied to a pet passport identifier, because we know that a large number of puppies are illegally imported into the UK to be sold online.
The other question to understand is this. Will Reggie’s law make a difference? Well, Rick and the team are in regular discussion with various stakeholders from the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and others, and they have secured agreement that the ID requirements of Reggie’s law would not only put in place necessary barriers in relation to this practice, but make investigations and court action against illegal breeders and sellers much easier. We know what the international response has been. In Victoria, Australia, following the introduction of a similar law known as Oscar’s law, dog theft and illegal breeding and selling dropped by more than 90%. Reggie’s law could have such a positive impact, not only on puppy-farmed pets and stolen pets but on the health and wellbeing of owners and buyers.
As animal lovers and pet owners, we know the bond of love and loyalty that exists with the family pet. Will the Minister outline how the matter being debated is to be taken forward, given the wide public and cross-party support here today? We have a duty to honour that loyalty by protecting those creatures who are otherwise defenceless against such cruelty. This would be a real opportunity to set the tone for legislation to be developed across these islands.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on setting the scene so well for us all. I also congratulate Richard, who is in the Gallery, for making this debate happen, and all those MPs who made the effort on that very wet day to be with him—I was not one of them.
When I read the title of the debate, I knew I would want to add my comments. I have always been an animal lover, and I have always been fortunate to have dogs. When I lived with my mother and father in the countryside or in small villages, having a dog was as natural as getting up in the morning, going for a walk and going to school. We have always had dogs. I remember my first dog very well, in Ballywalter back in the early ’60s. He was a collie; we have also had Pomeranians, Jack Russells, terriers, springer and cocker spaniels, and we have also moved to hunting dogs—I love hunting. Hunting dogs give us a purpose, and love and affection and companionship.
I was also very fortunate to have married, some 34 years ago, another animal lover, who volunteered at Assisi for 10 years. She now works part-time in a cattery. Sandra had a love of cats; I had a love of dogs but I learned to love cats, because my wife wanted me to. That was just the way it happened. Now, I love cats as much as my wife does, although I had to acquire that affection for them over the years. What brought us together was our love for each other, but she then brought home a wonderful rescue dog from Assisi called Autumn. That is the dog we have now. That dog was abused and very fearful. She had a particular fear of men; I only had to raise my voice a bit and her tail would be between her legs. It took a number of years for that dog to come around. She is some seven years down the line, and is loving her life. Sandra and I could not imagine life without her.
Autumn and so many others like her are the reason I abhor online shopping for animals because of the lack of regulation and the potential for abuse of the system that is in place to protect animal welfare. That is why the debate is so important. Members have made pertinent contributions, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I have spoken on many occasions against puppy farms, and the need to see the dog in the home with the mum, not in a Tesco car park, as the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) said. It may happen in Tesco or any other big car park so that they can get lost in the crowd.
We need to prevent some of the horror stories that we hear daily of the maltreatment of animals in puppy farms. Covid-19 exacerbated the online sale of animals, there is no doubt about that. People were seeking companionship and needed something to fill that gap. Charities such as Blue Cross and Dogs Trust sent me and others briefings stating that they understood that many pets are bought and sold on the internet in the 21st century. Therefore, we must work together with classified websites, social media platforms, charities and the Minister to ensure that the online marketplace is as safe as possible for people to buy and sell animals.
How do we improve it? I look to my Minister and my Government. My preference would be to end all online sales, but I understand that that is how the world now operates, so it may not be possible. I would suggest that we bring in regulations to change the situation. We need to ensure that enforceable legislation is place. Blue Cross has urged the Government to legislate to make the Pet Advertising Advisory Group’s minimum standards a legal requirement for website selling animals.
Furthermore, the Government and the Minister must look at the legislation introduced in France in 2016, which is a good example of how we can do this. I am not fond of everything that comes out of Europe—that is not a secret—but if France can do something with that legislation, why can we not at least look at it? The legislation mandated the inclusion of tax numbers in all online pet adverts. I suggest that we ascertain whether something similar would be workable across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
As someone who is usually sceptical of additional regulation, it is not often that I advocate for it, but as a bare minimum we must introduce those minimum standards. However, I do not believe that that is the end of our obligations. I ask the Minister whether consideration has been given to appointing a working group to tease out the best way of fulfilling our animal welfare obligations to a high standard, which is what we all want to do, including the Minister, and not to the bare minimum standard that is apparent today.
How can we allow reputable businesses to continue their trade? Not everybody is in the puppy farm business; some do it the right way, and we have to ensure that they are rewarded and can continue to do so, while ferreting out those who have no concern for the animal that they are selling, or the home that they are placing it into. The debate has given us a chance to reiterate our commitment to doing better than we are. I know that the Minister, like myself, is keen to have something in place that works for the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and the rest of the regions of the United Kingdom. How are we ensuring that puppies from puppy farms in the Republic of Ireland cannot come through Northern Ireland into Scotland and the rest of the mainland?
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to sum up the debate for the Scottish National party. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees), who set the scene in such a detailed way and who often speaks on animal welfare matters. She laid out the crux of the matter for the Minister, and why this is such an important debate to so many right across the United Kingdom.
I also pay a special tribute to Richard Ackers, who is in the Gallery and has spearheaded this wonderful campaign, paying tribute in such an important and compassionate way to the life of Reggie in order to ensure that his sad life and death were not in vain. Much good can come from his story. This little puppy has stolen the hearts of many people across the United Kingdom, and is now spearheading a campaign to ensure that no other puppies and pets go through the same trauma that he did, or a similar trauma.
I pay tribute to many of the hon. Members on both sides of the House who have spoken. It has been a fantastic debate. As was mentioned, it has been difficult to disagree with anything that has been said so far, which is somewhat unusual but very—
Dr Cameron
It makes me feel extremely positive, and as the hon. Member says it is refreshing in this House.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) spoke about cats and rabbits too, which was important. As chair of the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group, I tend to have a focus on dogs, which I think, until he met his wife, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) had, too. It is important that we realise that there are huge sales of other types of pet too, and this type of regulation can have a wide-ranging impact. Many Members have spoken, including the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who I joined last week at the door of No. 10, with Rick.
Dr Cameron
Absolutely. I thought I mentioned everybody, but I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, who is waving at me from across the way. He has managed to combine many animal welfare campaigns, and it has been amazing to work with him. He was one of the leading lights in the campaign last week.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) was on the steps alongside us. There was such a cross-party effort. He made sure that we were aware that the issue did not just affect little Reggie, it carries on to this day. MPs too can fall foul when buying puppies and other animals online, despite best efforts and the research we try to do. As the hon. Member said, when he saw that little puppy—particularly with his family with him—his heart melted and the sale was done. The unscrupulous dealers of puppies, kittens and other pets see that as money in the bank.
We have done a lot with Lucy’s law. I want to pay tribute to Marc Abraham, because Lucy’s law has taken us on a journey towards much better regulation. However, as has been mentioned today, we have further steps to take, and laws must be strengthened. The Justice For Reggie campaign group has listened to thousands of people every month who suffer scams, heartache and financial turmoil. Most end up paying financially as well as emotionally. They are traumatised and scarred, while the seller readvertises on platforms, because, quite simply, platforms lack the required regulation.
Rick said:
“When I bought Reggie through a well-known selling website and realised I had unknowingly contributed to illegal puppy farming, I have never hidden the fact that I could have done more research and should have walked away. This would have prevented the seller getting more money to continue the illegal acts of animal cruelty, although Reggie's fate would have been the same and he would have still died. What I gave Reggie was love and dignity and ensured he had pain relief throughout his very short life. Had I not bought him, Reggie would have been discarded like rubbish and died in pain.”
Families are put in an impossible situation day after day. Rick’s campaign has heard from over 300 families, who have contacted it distraught and not knowing which way to turn. They blame themselves, as they too bought puppies using online sites.
Sir Mike Penning
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I hope I am not shortening the Minister’s speaking time, Mr Mundell. There is another side to this. There are people out there who want to buy dogs that are mutilated. Their ears have been cut—not by vets. They mutilate these animals and sell them on. There is a market for that; that market needs to be shut and the full force of the law imposed. It is not just about families who are buying an animal to love and cherish. There are people who want to buy mutilated dogs, which are available on these sites.
Dr Cameron
Absolutely. The right hon. Member makes an extremely good point. There is also what I would describe as an ongoing fashion in breeding dogs in ways that are not healthy for the dog breed. That must be looked at alongside the matter that he raised.
We all applauded the introduction of Lucy’s law. I was privileged and delighted to campaign on it and launch it in Parliament as chair of the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group. The law has gone a long way. However, as we can see, people are evading it. Over lockdown, Rick’s campaign spoke to 86 councils across the UK. All of them have repeated the same message: they are too underfunded and understaffed to police the law. Much more support must go to councils. That will be absolutely crucial. It would be helpful if the Minister indicated the level of ongoing collaboration with the council groups and explained how we can strengthen that to make sure that, in practice, it does what it says it does on the tin.
It is very upsetting for families to go through this. Rick said it affected his mental health, and he was so disturbed by it that he decided to set up the Animal Welfare Alliance, a collaboration between 10 of the largest websites in the UK, prompted by Justice For Reggie through numerous meetings. Their aim is to share data and improve protection, but they are not naive enough to say that that will solve the problems. They need the Government to act. This clearly needs enforcing with regulations. As many hon. Members have said, it is a wild west on the internet, quite frankly. Without the Government acting to ensure regulation, this will not happen, because platforms simply will not do it themselves.
Rick highlighted PAAG, and he appreciates its work to control online sales, to try to make being online safer. However, it cannot do that alone, and it only speaks with a small number of websites. As we discussed, we are in a digital age, and we cannot turn back the clock. A ban on online sales is not pragmatic. It is not doable. It is not going to work. Regulation is supported by many of the animal welfare charities that contacted me before the debate and it seems to be the most pragmatic way of addressing these grave matters.
Pets are sentient. There seems to be more regulation when buying a car online nowadays than when buying a pet. People have to go through many more processes to verify who they are and their insurance and other various things, but buying a pet does not seem to have the same level of rigour, which it really should have. It is a tall order for the Minister, but I know she has a good heart and tries her very best in everything she works on. In tribute to Reggie, we must make sure his life is not in vain. We must tackle this online wild west with regulation. It is a mix of consumer scams, animal cruelty and serious organised criminals who profit in the same way as they do from other illegal activities that they engage in. It is a serious matter.
Jonathan Edwards
I was touched by the comments from the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) about the criminal nature of these gangs. Unfortunately, Carmarthenshire has a number of illegal puppy farms. The fines for people when they are caught seem pretty low. There was one instance of a £200,000 fine. Do we need to look at the penalties for people who engage in this activity?
Dr Cameron
Absolutely. That is a great point to end on. Action must be taken, because this is about serious organised criminals. I have the same situation in my constituency as the hon. Member. It is difficult to address these issues. It will require concerted effort, but it must be undertaken to make sure that no more little dogs like Reggie go through such a terrible death.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees). Her introduction was comprehensive, full, excellent and very moving. What a fantastic debate, and what fantastic unanimity around the Chamber. There were powerful contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), the right hon. Members for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) and for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), and the hon. Members for Warrington South (Andy Carter), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and some powerful interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd).
I am pleased to have the opportunity to put on the record Labour’s tributes to the fantastic campaign for Reggie’s law. We offer our support for it and for the 109,000 people who signed the petition. Like others, I was delighted to meet Rick in a rather wet Trafalgar Square last week. What a walk, what a campaign and what a wounded heel. The simple message from the campaign is that the law is not working, and it is up to us in Parliament to do something about it. That was powerfully put by the right hon. Members for North Thanet and for Hemel Hempstead. The biggest question for the Minister is how DEFRA is working with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, because this is as much about the online world as it is about animal welfare. During the Committee stage of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, Labour tabled an amendment that we believe would have gone a long way in securing progress on this; I will return to that later.
The concerns about online advertising have been around for a long time, and I will not repeat the points made by others, but it is clear that the pandemic introduced a new range of issues. The world has changed, as the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead said. We have gone from the old world of notices on village notice boards to an online world where every notice board is available to everybody, everywhere. That creates a whole new set of problems.
We have heard the figures about the rise in the number of searches and the problems that that creates. From work on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, I could see the surge in prices and the problems with imports from abroad. It is clear that the treatment of imported cats and dogs, particularly, have fallen below acceptable standards and criminal gangs can see a lucrative revenue stream. The Government have recognised those problems, but we feel that their solutions do not go far enough, hence our amendments to try to crack down on that. There were some Government Members who agreed with us on that and decisions made during discussions were fairly close, so I hope that we will have the opportunity to go further on Report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd made the point very well about changes over the past few years that have led to a range of worrying situations, including the click and drop situation, where animals are collected by potential buyers. Research from the Kennel Club suggests that, for many people, these ways of buying animals have become the new norms. We heard about some developments that have, quite rightly, been introduced, such as the licensing of activities involving animals regulations and Lucy’s law. There is progress, but more needs to be done. The problem that Rick and others have expressed to me is that PAAG may be well meaning, but it is not going to work with a voluntary system. Many PAAG members have come to the same conclusion.
There is a list of things that people want to be done, alongside the enforcement questions. The RSPCA makes it clear that there is plenty of evidence that those who break the rules do not face any real consequences. It tells us that it is not clear that online adverts that break the rules are routinely removed by many sites, and that neither social media sites nor the sellers responsible are punished. As we heard from a number of Members, local authorities do not have the resources or expertise to deal with this, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead that if there were a real will, it could be done. The question is if there is a real will and if we are prepared to put resources into that.
Many of these websites and social media platforms, for which I do not think there is much sympathy in this room, are hugely profitable businesses. They are very good at—how can I put it?—being creative about how they account for themselves, but that is part of the problem, as they often have external jurisdictions and we need to work with others to try to clamp down on them. There is a wider problem, but we can see the sheer horribleness of it and its consequences. We need better resourced enforcement, to use some of those tax investigations and so that we can go beyond taking part on a voluntary basis.
To finish with the details of Reggie’s law, as I mentioned, we tried to introduce parts of that through an amendment to the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which I hope will be reintroduced on Report. It required all websites that sell animals to verify the identity of all sellers. It also demanded that all prospective sellers who wished to sell a cat or dog aged one year or less should post a photograph of the animal with one of its parents, as a number of Members have suggested. It required listings by commercial sellers that did not include that seller’s licence number to be removed, therefore helping to ensure that all animals sold online came from reputable, trustworthy sources.
We had a discussion in Committee, but the Government chose not to accept the amendment. In her response to the amendment, the Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food cited the existing legislation and guidelines that were in place, but they are not enough. The campaign for Reggie demands more, the petitioners demand more, and frankly, I think all of us in this room demand more. The online world has a lot to offer, but it must stop being a haven for those who profit from the cruel exploitation of animals. It is time to crack down on them.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I call Minister Jo Churchill. Just be mindful that you should leave a couple of minutes at the end for Christina Rees to wind up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
Indeed I will, Mr Mundell; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees), who laid out brilliantly the challenges we face: she cantered through the challenge posed by the online world while recognising the work of the Pet Advertising Advisory Group.
I pay tribute to Richard, or Rick, Ackers for the work he has done. As he has heard this afternoon, we do not always speak with one voice in this place, but he has managed to galvanise Members from all sides of the House to put forward a very compelling case that there is a challenge here. I hope he will hear in my response something to give him hope that we recognise not only that the issue is a challenge, but that we need help from people like him to get the right answers. Such cases cause emotional distress. As we heard from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), when someone is presented with a small puppy, their heart melts. As a Labrador owner, my sympathy is with Richard, his family and his children. What happened is just grim.
We are a nation of animal lovers—if we wanted to prove that, this afternoon’s debate could not have done a better job. We abhor with one voice the mistreatment of animals. The Government have worked hard to improve the welfare of animals wherever they are, but, as today’s debate has outlined, there are still gaps that need filling. Our record on animal welfare is good, and in recent years we have done more to make sure that we are filling those gaps and that animals receive the care and protection they deserve. Only in June this year, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 came into force, delivering on our manifesto commitment to increase the sentences available in our courts for the most serious cases of animal cruelty from six months to five years. We also launched our action plan for animal welfare this year, bringing together the wide range of different issues we are dealing with and setting out our future aims and ambitions. In addition, our commitment to maintain the UK at the leading edge of animal welfare is one with which we all agree.
As we have heard, the Justice For Reggie campaign that stems from Reggie’s sad little life focuses on the advertising requirements that apply to the sale of pets. The online sale of pets is currently regulated as follows: under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, anyone in the business of selling animals as pets, or breeding or selling dogs, requires a valid licence. As we have heard, this is a challenge: we have strengthened things up such that dog breeders are expected to obtain a licence if they breed and sell three or more litters per year.
The sale of puppies, kittens, ferrets and rabbits under the age of eight weeks is prohibited, and we talk to Scotland quite regularly about that issue, to ensure we can learn from what is being done there. That prohibition prevents licensed breeders from selling dogs not bred by them and from breeding dogs where it can be reasonably expected, on the basis of their genotype, phenotype or health, that doing so would lead to welfare problems. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) raised that issue.
Licensed breeders must also show puppies to purchasers in the presence of their mum. However, we heard that that is not always the easiest thing to insist on when someone is presented with the puppy, particularly if those around them want to take it home. Licensed sellers advertising puppies for sale must include their number; during the recent Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill, the shadow Minister and I spoke about how that will add another tool to our toolbox. We heard about how Lucy’s law stops the early separation of animals from their mums, unnecessary journeys at a young age from breeder to pet shop, and the keeping of puppies in inappropriate commercial premises. We have also heard that, for all that, these things still go on.
Under these licensing requirements, licensees must meet strict statutory welfare standards. Anybody who advertises must include their number on the advert, and must specify which local authority issued the licence. There is an onus on us, and Rick has said that at every stage he should have done more. However, I am cognisant of the fact that while that is easy to say, it is quite challenging to do.
Andy Carter
Does my hon. Friend agree with me that social media companies can play a much bigger part? It is not beyond the wit of man to create a form for that type of information—those licence numbers—to be entered in, so that they could be clearly verified using technology. Could she consider that with colleagues in DCMS?
Jo Churchill
My hon. Friend brings up a point about responsibility. There is responsibility on those who purchase and on the breeders, but there must also be responsibility on online companies. The hon. Member for Neath mentioned databases; making sure that databases are functional is also important in this space, and it is something that I think Mr Ackers has also addressed in his work.
Sir Mike Penning
One of the biggest issues for the Minister and the public to understand is that if these animals were pigs or cattle, we would know exactly who the mum was and where they had been travelling. We would know all their breeding—everything about them—for the safety of our constituents. This cannot be beyond the wit of man. Just because the word “pet” is used should not mean that we cannot trace these animals. Surely we can do something.
Jo Churchill
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Covid has meant that the movement of livestock is recorded much more online, which has shown us ways of traceability.
In addition to the duties to show the age of the animal for sale and a recognised photograph, the commercial third party sale of puppies and kittens has been banned in England since 6 April 2020. That prevents commercial outlets from selling animals in England unless they themselves have bred them. As I said before, licensed breeders are prohibited from showing a puppy to a prospective purchaser unless the biological mum is also present. There is an exemption in limited circumstances when welfare concerns must take precedence. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) pointed out, some unscrupulous breeders rarely think of the consequences for the mother when they are doing this under the line.
Alongside the statutory regulation of commercial pet breeders and pet sellers, we support the self-regulation of online platforms that sell pets. We do this through the close working relationship we have with PAAG, which was created to combat concerns regarding the irresponsible advertising of pets for sale, or for rehoming for exchange.
Daniel Zeichner
I heard the Minister mention self-regulation, but are we not agreed that self-regulation is not going to be enough? Are we going to go further?
Jo Churchill
Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me a little longer?
PAAG has been engaging with the online marketplaces, to help them distinguish appropriate adverts from those that should be removed. PAAG has developed a set of minimum standards for advertising pets for sale. Several of the UK’s largest classifieds websites have already adopted these minimum standards, which the Government support.
DEFRA also runs a public communications campaign called Petfished, which we heard about earlier; it raises the awareness of issues associated with the low welfare and illegal supply of pets, including encouraging prospective buyers to research thoroughly. The current work in that area also includes progressing the pet theft taskforce recommendation, which was made in September, to encourage sales platforms to implement more identity checks. We will approach that work through our existing relationship with PAAG.
The inclusion of advertising requirements within the local authority licensing regime serves an important purpose, ensuring that those with the power to issue, revoke, refuse or vary a licence can act where requirements are not met. That builds on the local authority’s ability to investigate and prosecute animal welfare issues under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The net result is a rounded approach that lets local authorities investigate local instances of low-welfare breeding and selling, pursue prosecutions where animal welfare standards are breached, and manage the licensing regime. I have heard many hon. Members today saying that there are big gaps, so I will briefly address those comments.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead spoke about mutilations of dogs. The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill includes a power to make regulations about the importation of pet animals into Great Britain, for the purposes of promoting animal welfare. That will enable us to clamp down on the importation of dogs that have been subject to low-welfare practices, such as ear cropping or tail docking.
As I said to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), we have regular contact with our Scottish counterparts, but the LAIA regulations require anyone selling rabbits as pets to obtain that valid licence, as with any other area. On online sales, DEFRA does have a responsibility to improve self-regulation through PAAG and the LAIA regulations, but the other aspects sit with DCMS. I will come on to how we are working, and intend to work more fully, with the Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) spoke about how particularly special dogs are to families, and how parents need to be present; I urge people to ensure that they are. We have heard about the Dotties and the Doras, and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead about how sad a home is when we lose a dog.
Online sales outside the UK that result in animals being imported are not captured by the current licensing regime and neither are pets rehomed by rescue centres, but the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill will introduce further restrictions on imports to combat low-welfare movements. We are working towards the licensing of rescue centres.
To conclude, we think a holistic approach is possible, but I am well aware that the key stakeholders—trade associations, PAAG, the Pet Industry Federation, and the Canine and Feline Sector Group—will be integral to collecting evidence to inform DEFRA’s review. In addition, I would welcome any evidence that Justice for Reggie may hold about how we can improve that. Following this debate, I will ask officials to meet representatives of the Justice for Reggie campaign in the coming days so that we can take on board any information and evidence they can provide that can assist our understanding of these issues. There will also be a roundtable with PAAG and some of the online platforms in the new year, which Justice for Reggie would be welcome to attend to make its points in person.
To conclude, the Government are proud of the improved protections that we have introduced and of our ambitious and progressive reform programme, but there is further to go. I hope that those present today have been reassured that we take this issue seriously and will work together, across Government and with those involved, to improve the situation.
Christina Rees
I thank all Members for their valuable contributions to this important debate. We all agree that the Government must act now. It is terribly upsetting that unscrupulous people are making money from disreputable pet animal sales online, but the key point is that innocent people are being duped by unscrupulous pet sellers who do not care if the animals they are selling live or die. Those poor animals endure the most disgusting conditions; I do not understand how anyone can be cruel to a pet that only wants to give unconditional love.
I urge the Minister—who is very magnanimous, and listens—to legislate to prevent people suffering the heartbreak that Richard has. I thank Richard for his determination not to give up on justice for Reggie. It has been an absolute honour to present Reggie’s law for Richard in this evening’s debate.
Written Statements
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Duchy of Lancaster Estate 2020-21
(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 for Efficiency and Transformation, Lord Agnew Kt, has today made the following written statement:
I have today laid before Parliament, pursuant to section 86 of the Climate Change Act 2008, the “State of the Estate in 2020-21”. This report describes the progress made on the efficiency and sustainability of the central Government estate and, where relevant, records the progress that the Government have made since the previous year. The report is published on an annual basis.
[HCWS470]
Human Rights Sanctions Designations: Myanmar
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
On International Human Rights Day, 10 December, the UK announced a further tranche of sanctions in response to the military coup in Myanmar under the Myanmar (Sanctions) Regulations 2021. Asset freezes have been imposed on four Myanmar entities responsible for manufacturing or procuring arms and equipment and providing support and finance to the Myanmar military, which has continued to undermine democracy and violate the fundamental rights of the civilian population. The UK is committed to preventing the flow of arms to Myanmar and will continue to use sanctions and diplomatic pressure to this end.
In parallel, the UK imposed an asset freeze and travel ban on one individual under the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 for serious human rights abuses in Pakistan. The designation of a former Lashkar-e-Jhangvi commander who facilitated the 2017 bombing of the Lai Shahbaz Qalandar shrine, which killed at least 70 people, sends a strong message that the UK will use all tools at our disposal to defend freedom of religion and belief.
The UK announced the designations during the US-hosted summit for democracy, as part of our commitment to continue to use our targeted sanctions to defend human rights as well as counter serious corruption globally.
The full list of designations is below:
Under the Myanmar Sanctions Regulations 2021
Myanmar
The Quarter Master General’s Office.
The Directorate for Defence Industries, a state-owned enterprise.
The Department for Defence Procurement.
The Myanmar War Veterans Organisation, a quasi-reserve force for the Myanmar military Under the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020.
Pakistan
Furqan Bangalzai; a former commander in the terror organisation Lashkar-e-Jhangvi.
[HCWS469]
Director of Labour Market Enforcement's Strategies 2020-21 and 2021-22
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
Alongside the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), I am today publishing the Labour Market Enforcement Strategies for 2020-21 and 2021-22, submitted by the previous Director of Labour Market Enforcement, Matthew Taylor. The strategies will be available on www.gov.uk.
The Director of Labour Market Enforcement’s role was created by the Immigration Act 2016 to bring better focus and strategic co-ordination to the enforcement of labour market legislation by the three enforcement bodies which are responsible for state enforcement of specific employment rights:
The Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate (EAS);
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs National Minimum and Living Wage enforcement team (HMRC NMW/NLW team); and
The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA).
Under section 2 of the Act, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement is required by the Immigration Act 2016 to prepare an annual labour market enforcement strategy, which assesses the scale and nature of non-compliance in the labour market and sets priorities for future enforcement by the three enforcement bodies and the allocation of resources needed to deliver those priorities.
Before his term ended, Matthew Taylor submitted these strategies ahead of the statutory deadlines. It was important to take the time to work with the Director and the enforcement bodies to ensure the strategies were making the right recommendations in the face of the challenges to the labour market presented by the pandemic. We are now working closely with the enforcement bodies as they implement the recommendations alongside their day-to-day enforcement activities.
In previous years, we have published a Government response to the strategies setting out the approach we will take to the recommendations. For the latest strategies, we have instead worked closely with the Director and their office and the enforcement bodies to agree the recommendations ahead of publication of the strategies.
I thank Matthew Taylor for his contribution over the 18 months he spent in the role. I am looking forward to working with the new Director, Margaret Beels, who took up the role in November 2021. Margaret brings with her extensive industry experience, having been chair of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA) since 2011, where she led on work to tackle and prevent modern slavery and labour exploitation—and which she was honoured with an OBE for in 2020.
As we continue to support workers and root out exploitation by rogue employers, Margaret’s experience will be invaluable, and I look forward to working with her in helping to build an economy that works for all.
[HCWS472]
Transport for London Funding Settlement: Interim Extension
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
I am updating the House on an interim extension of the current Transport for London funding settlement that was due to expire on 11 December 2021 by one week. This has been agreed by the Mayor of London.
On 8 December, the Department for Transport received a letter from the Mayor of London that provided further information on how Transport for London and the Mayor will raise new income of between £0.5 billion and £1 billion in line with the commitment agreed under the June 2021 emergency settlement. This response was already three weeks past the original deadline of 12 November. Government require further clarification on these proposals and the Mayor of London has been asked to provide more detailed information by 15 December. Should sufficient information be received, work on an extended further settlement will continue, to support the capital and its transport network. We have thus far supported London with over £4 billion of funding and will make sure services are protected while work on the next settlement is underway.
Support to Transport for London has always been on the condition that Transport for London reaches financial sustainability as soon as possible and with a target date of April 2023. The condition on identifying new or increased income sources is integral to Transport for London achieving that objective. An extension of the existing funding settlement will provide Transport for London with support until 17 December 2021 by rolling over the provisions of the existing settlement, providing continued support to Transport for London and certainty to Londoners while we work with Transport for London on their funding needs.
The Government are committed to supporting London and the transport network on which it depends, while balancing that with supporting the national transport network. I will update the House on the details of the next financial settlement after the close of this extension period.
[HCWS468]
Counter-fraud Funding
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
Fraud is stealing from honest taxpayers. It is right we bring the collective weight of Government to bear on this growing challenge and I am determined to take further decisive action.
Across Government, 16,000 people, including counter-fraud experts, are currently working to tackle fraud. The world’s first Government Counter-fraud Function works to identify new and emerging fraud risks and to support Departments to improve capability to access and use data and analytics to tackle these risks.
My Department has worked hard to drive out fraud. Officials prevented more than £1.9 billion of fraud during the first year of the pandemic through strengthening our checks and disrupting the operations of serious and organised crime groups.
However, it is clear that we need to go further, both in terms of eradicating fraud from our current cases and designing fraud out of the system.
At spending review (SR) 2021, DWP secured £103 million for fraud and error activity to continue funding key fraud and error detection and prevention work originally agreed in spring Budget 2021. This first phase of funding enables DWP to secure the completion of our current transformation programme which will enhance our ability to prevent and detect fraud and error.
Today, I can announce additional funding of £510 million over the next three years. This second phase of funding, which will deliver significant savings over the SR period, will enable us to drive down the level of fraud in universal credit (UC) and collect more debt, through:
A targeted review of UC claims to allow us to systematically review stock UC cases to uncover fraud and error and remove it from the system;
a debt enforcement function to allow us to target hard to collect debt.
This funding also includes provision for a fraud prevention fund, which will allow us to explore and test innovative approaches to designing out fraud and error. This investment represents a further important step towards our long-term vision, dramatically reducing the level of fraud and error in the UC stock and more effective collection of debt while continuing to provide effective counter fraud operations on a larger scale.
[HCWS471]
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 Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others and to wear a face covering when not speaking. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill
Monday 13th December 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022 View all Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 60-I Manuscript amendments for Grand Committee, supplementary to the Marshalled List - (13 Dec 2021)
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment, to probe what powers will be available to a Minister who remains in office for the provided period of up to 24 weeks, or 48 weeks, following an Assembly election.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to what is probably his first Committee on a Bill in his new position. I am sure he will enjoy the experience in the Moses Room.
This is a probing amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Coaker about an issue that I raised at Second Reading. Clause 2 advises that Ministers will no longer cease to hold office after the election of a new Assembly, and provides for a maximum of 24 weeks after an election, or 48 weeks since there has been an Executive in place, whichever is the shorter, in which Ministers may continue to hold office. We support the clause, but it would be helpful to have some guidance and clarity from the Minister on this issue.
I appreciate that some of this was first mentioned by Karen Bradley when she was Secretary of State back in 2018, when the Northern Ireland Civil Service was taken to court because it was felt that civil servants had exceeded their powers in taking decisions without ministerial direction. There has to be a way through that. When I lost my seat in 2010, I remained a Minister, but only for five days. You could say that under direct rule the situation was self-limiting for those of us who were Ministers, as we were not elected by anyone in Northern Ireland in terms of what we were able to do. The key question raised at Second Reading was what powers these caretaker Ministers will have and if there is any limit on those powers. In a number of areas there is a lack of clarity.
I was surprised by the comment made in the House of Commons by the Minister, who said that the courts will be able to deal with this. He said:
“given that legal safeguards are already in place”,
there is no need for additional statutory clarity, and:
“We also know that the courts are ready to step in, should Ministers act unlawfully.”—[Official Report, Commons, Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill Committee, 6/7/21; col. 70.]
I am not clear what a Minister “acting unlawfully” would be or where the limits would be. If the decisions taken are going to be controversial, some decisions can be delayed, but depending on where they are in the cycle of that decision-making process or when the Executive are likely to be up and running again, there may be quite a time lag.
It is better to know at this stage where the balance is and what the Government’s thinking is. Clearly, to have ministerial accountability is significantly better than leaving civil servants in the position where they are trying to make decisions without any ministerial direction, but I am really not sure where the Government think the clarity is. What is the point at which Ministers could not take a decision? It could be that a Minister had lost their seat or decided not to stand again, but remained a Minister. Where are the limitations on ministerial power if they are a caretaker Minister? I beg to move.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on this issue, it is an important area that deserves greater clarification.
We all remember the period when Northern Ireland was deliberately left ungoverned and civil servants had the most difficult task of all: having to keep their departments ticking over with no real precedent for any guidance as to the extent of their decision-making powers. Some Permanent Secretaries went a little further than others. I remember speaking to one particular Permanent Secretary who indicated that there was a live debate continued among the Permanent Secretaries as to the extent of their powers, and at one stage whether they should be doing some of the things that they were doing in the absence of political guidance. There was certainly a difference in emphasis.
We need to understand, and perhaps the Minister could clarify, what in essence the difference will be between the sorts of decisions that civil servants were taking during the period that we all know about, the three-year interregnum where there were no Ministers, and the decisions that Ministers in these circumstances will be able to take. Could he, for instance, give me a concrete example of a decision that a Minister could take as a caretaker under this that a civil servant could not have taken? I would imagine that they are pretty limited.
There has been reference to carrying on with the decisions that have been made by the Executive in the run-up to caretaker Ministers being in place and that such Ministers should follow the trajectory of the Executive in decision-making going forward. Thinking of the current circumstances regarding the Budget, which appears not to have found agreement in Northern Ireland—there is apparently some limited agreement on the priorities within it, but not all departmental allocations—yet it is out for consultation. What would an interim Finance Minister be able to do in such circumstances? A certain amount of guidance would have been given to him in this situation, but not any kind of final decisions on allocations. So, again, it is not an entirely academic hypothesis that a Finance Minister could find himself in such a position as a caretaker with the Budget in this kind of condition.
I know these are difficult circumstances, and we are trying to find a balance between having no governance and leaving the Province in some kind of sensible situation when it comes to governance in the absence of a full Executive, but I would be grateful if the Minister could try to address those particular issues.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, has said, this is a probing amendment. I think we would all agree that the recent experience of over 1,000 days of political uncertainty when there was no Executive in Northern Ireland is not something that anyone would want repeated. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, have said, it put the civil servants in an incredibly difficult position. We very much hope that we will never again be in a situation where the Assembly is on the brink of collapse, but if such circumstances were to arise, it is important that there is as much stability and clarity on this as possible.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about how he sees this working in practice and, in particular, if he could say a little more about the requirements, as set out in New Decade, New Approach, for Ministers
“to act within well-defined limits”.
Can he explain what that would mean in practice?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister, in his response at Second Reading, provided some clarity on this, indicating that there would be constraints and that cross-cutting issues would still have to go to the Executive for approval. But what happens if there is no First and Deputy First Minister in that period of interregnum? We are supposed to have collective responsibility. Issues are supposed to be taken on a partnership basis. I can remember many times when we did not necessarily have that partnership basis, so I agree with the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lady Smith and Lord Coaker.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to the period between 2017 and 2020. That was a time when civil servants were placed in an invidious position, with limited powers, which piled frustration and anxiety on the wider community. Those civil servants, because of their limited powers, could only take certain decisions. I can well recall the decision in court on the incinerator north of Belfast, where the judge’s judgment indicated that the civil servants had probably acted outwith their powers in this instance.
The Minister was, as I still am, a member of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee. He will recall that the common frameworks came into place in the post-Brexit situation to deal with policy divergence in certain areas devolved to the DAs. Quite a significant amount was devolved to Northern Ireland, but no decisions were taken on those common frameworks during that three-year period because there were no Ministers in place to deal with that—there was no Northern Ireland Executive. The Minister will recall that we in our committee had great difficulty in trying to pursue those common frameworks to their final degree of approval, or to the next stage, where they could be examined with a greater degree of scrutiny. That illustrates the case where there is a need for full-time Ministers.
However, in that period of interregnum, where a Minister’s authority is being extended because of the nature of the difficulties in the Executive, what authority do they have and can that be prescribed in this legislation? Perhaps the Minister could provide us with more clarity and more detail today. If need be, will the Government consider tabling an amendment on Report to deal with this issue and specify the areas of authority?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the warm welcome from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. As my noble friend Lord Empey said to me after Second Reading, it all goes downhill from here. I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment and hope that my response will provide her with some clarity and sufficient reassurance over the role of caretaker Ministers under Clause 2.
It is worth reminding noble Lords of the central purpose of this clause. As noble Lords will recall, the Assembly and Executive ceased to function, in effect, following Martin McGuinness’s resignation in January 2017. As a consequence, Northern Ireland found itself in a state of political limbo, with limited or no decision-making, for nearly three years. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, I sincerely hope that we will never be in that situation again.
During the period while the Executive was not functioning, civil servants, as has been mentioned, were left trying to maintain the machinery of government and provide public services in the absence of ministerial decisions. Without the direction and control of Ministers, those civil servants were significantly limited in the powers that they exercised. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to differences of opinion between civil servants over which powers they could exercise and we all remember the court case over the incinerator in north Belfast, around 2018, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred. The noble Lord’s comments yet again underline the unsatisfactory nature of the situation in which we found ourselves.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I hope that it works in practice. My greatest fear is that if we do not have adequate clarity now, there could be some confusion or conflict later on, which is exactly what the Bill seeks to avoid, but I do not intend to pursue my amendment at this stage. I am not 100% certain that it is absolute guidance, but I am confident that it is significantly better than where we are at present. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Appointment of First Ministers
(1) The Northern Ireland Act 1998 is amended as follows.(2) In section 16A (appointment of Ministers following Assembly election), leave out subsections (4) to (7) and subsection (9), and insert after subsection (3)—“(3ZA) Each candidate for the office of joint First Minister must stand for election jointly with a candidate for the other office.(3ZB) Two candidates standing jointly may not be elected to the two offices without one or more of the following measures of representational support—(a) the support of a majority of members, a majority of designated Nationalists and a majority of designated Unionists; or(b) the support of 60 per cent of members, 40 per cent of designated Nationalists and 40 per cent of designated Unionists; or(c) the support of two thirds of members.(3ZC) The First Minister and the deputy First Minister—(a) may not take up office until each of them has affirmed the terms of the pledge of office; and(b) subject to the provisions of this Part, hold office until the conclusion of the next election for First Ministers.”(3) In subsection (3)(a) the reference to “subsections (4) to (7)” is replaced by a reference to “subsections (3ZA) to (3ZC)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would restore the Good Friday Agreement provision for joint election by the Assembly of the joint First Ministers.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 2 and 3 in my name and to support Amendment 4 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Rogan.
Amendment 2 refers to restoring the Good Friday agreement provision for joint election by the Assembly of the joint First Ministers. Amendment 3 would provide that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister be referred to as joint First Ministers, reflecting their identical status, powers and responsibilities.
I looked at some of the Commons stages of this Bill and noticed that my colleague, the former Member for Foyle, Mark Durkan, gave evidence. He was one of the negotiators, along with the noble Lords, Lord Trimble and Lord Empey, of the Good Friday agreement. He and the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party talked about going back to the factory settings of that agreement, in which both First Ministers are jointly elected by the Assembly and are therefore jointly accountable to it. In their roles and responsibilities, they are seen as equal.
The change took place in the St Andrews agreement. Those of us at St Andrews back in October 2006 will well recall those particular issues. I am sure that those in the room—I think I was outside it, but some of those who were inside it are here—could relate some of that. That destroyed or undermined the principle of parity of esteem, respect for political difference and, above all, the principle of power sharing and of working together, and it led to the sectarianisation of elections: that is, the elections of 2007, in which I was a participant, 2011, 2016 and 2017, and it looks like the Assembly election 2022 is heading in the same direction. The contest will not be about the issues that matter to people: a Covid recovery plan, education, the need for sound infrastructure, the economy or addressing health waiting lists. It will be, “Make me First Minister, so that they don’t get it”. It becomes a confrontation between them and us across the sectarian divide.
PR elections in Northern Ireland were never meant to be about that level of sectarianism. They were meant to be about breaking down barriers and respecting the various viewpoints, whether unionist, nationalist or other, but taking all into the melting pot. We now see that what was contrived at St Andrews has led to the sectarianisation of these elections.
I have had discussions with the noble Lord the Minister about these particular issues, so I am probing at this stage with a view to bringing this back on Report. Can the Minister say whether positive consideration will be given to these amendments? What discussions, if any, have taken place with ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office and Cabinet Office and with the Prime Minister about their intent and purpose and about the need to desectarianise the elections to the Assembly and the subsequent work in the institutions? We must always bear in mind that strand 1, which dealt with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive, and strand 2, on the North/South Ministerial Council, are interlinked. One plays off on the other, which from the nationalist perspective gives us that all-Ireland perspective. It is important that the method that is used for the election of the First Ministers is joint, so that they are accountable to the Assembly, are nominated and elected together and are voted on together. We need to go back to that particular position.
There also needs to be an equalisation of titles, as in Amendment 3, so that there is respect for political difference and a sense of agreement and consensus and, above all, so that the principle of consent is the kernel in all this.
I look forward to the Minister’s answers in relation to those two amendments.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, Amendment 4 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rogan is self-explanatory. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has said, it brings the proposals back to the arrangements that were entered into in 1998.
I believe of course that no agreement can be set in stone, and this was a multi-party agreement. Therefore, in my view, if you are going to change it, it should be a multi-party change. However, things are done, unfortunately, in back-stairs deals or behind closed doors and without the consent or knowledge of a number of the participants in the process that originally led to the agreement.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I have made the point that this amendment to the agreement came into effect following St Andrews, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, but it never had the support of those parties that negotiated the Belfast agreement in the first place. The purpose of the original model was to ensure that the necessary partnership between the parties that qualified for these positions was endorsed by the Assembly by joint resolution, giving public and political expression to the concept of a shared office of equals. The 2006 proposals have changed the character of subsequent elections. They have become sectarian headcounts. Some parties have, for example, argued that if they are not supported Sinn Féin would occupy the office of First Minister or vice versa, even though there is no legal difference between them.
My party believes that if the agreement is to be changed, as it is a multiparty agreement, proper discussions should precede new legislation. The Minister is well aware of my views on this, which have been held for many years. However, the evidence of recent years has shown that the change, while no doubt introduced by the Government of the day with the best of intentions, has held back the development of normal politics and resulted in ongoing stalemate and silo government. After 23 years, we are sitting here talking about the legislation before us, which is basically a patch-up job to prevent the institutions from collapsing completely. It clearly indicates that all is not well.
I do not intend to detain the Committee much longer, but I will make the point that what was done at that stage has not worked and we have wasted a further 15 years in failing to advance the cause of more normal arrangements and politics where things such as the economy, health and education are seriously debated and those debates make a difference. So far, that is not happening because people are forced into circling the waggons at each election. Even a cursory examination of election manifestos will clearly indicate that that is the direction of travel.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
I shall speak briefly in favour of Amendment 3, to which I have added my name. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, spelled out, it would provide for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to be referred to as Joint First Ministers, reflecting their identical status, powers and responsibilities. I hesitate slightly to speak in too much detail on this amendment when there are quite so many noble Lords in the Room who were directly involved with the various negotiations, but it seems to me that the current terminology allows for a distortion of the reality. In reality, if the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are entirely equal, can the Minister say what would be the disadvantage of passing this amendment or similar amendments? My honourable friend Stephen Farry said during the debate in the House of Commons when it passed this Bill that making this change would
“take the heat out of the fairly … meaningless contrast that is made and creates huge tension in our election campaigns.”—[Official Report, Commons, 26/10/21; col. 159.]
Lord Rogan (UUP)
I rise to support the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Empey. In common with my noble friend, I was there on Good Friday 1998 when the Belfast agreement was finalised. My role at that time was chair of the Ulster Unionist Party. My noble friend Lord Empey was our chief negotiator. He deserves much of the credit for that incredible achievement almost a quarter of a century ago.
It was not a perfect document—far from it. Negotiators from all parties involved in the talks, as well as the two Governments, had endless battles over the finer details of the agreement. Arguably, the biggest battles were around the release of terrorist prisoners, a concession that most unionists hated—we in the Ulster Unionist Party still do. However, the agreement was a compromise. We all had to make concessions that we would rather not have made. It was a delicate balancing act.
Every aspect of the Belfast agreement was critical to the final outcome, including the procedure by which the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were to be elected. The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, who I am pleased to see here today, and the late Seamus Mallon of the nationalist SDLP were the first holders of these posts. They were a joint ticket, elected by a cross-community vote of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That required the support of the majority of the MLAs—a majority of the designated unionist MLAs and of the designated nationalist MLAs. The endorsement of the Assembly, the elected representatives of the people, gave them their authority—the leaders of the unionists and the nationalists working together in the best interests of Northern Ireland as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, would openly acknowledge that every day was not harmonious, but at important and often tragic moments, such as the horrific deaths of the Quinn brothers and the Omagh bomb, both in the summer of 1998, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were able to stand shoulder to shoulder and speak on behalf of the country that they led.
However, all that changed following the St Andrews agreement in 2006. The Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act changed the process for appointing a First Minister and Deputy First Minister—and I ask noble Lords to note the word “appointed”, rather than “elected”. Since 2006, the First Minister had been nominated by the largest party overall and the Deputy First Minister by the largest party in the next largest community designation. The reasons for that change were entirely political. First, some MLAs wanted to be able to tell their supporters that they had no hand in electing a nationalist, whether they be from Sinn Féin/IRA or the SDLP, into office. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, has stated, they wanted to be able to proclaim at every subsequent Assembly election campaign that failing to support them would allow a nationalist to become First Minister, despite the positions of First Minister and Deputy First Minister being a shared office. I am sorry to say that both those reasons are rooted in sectarianism. That is shameful but it is the stark reality.
The Belfast agreement, which the DUP had no hand in and refused to support, was supposed to be a means of ending sectarianism, with the matter of the election of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister a key element of that. Unlike the St Andrews agreement, the Belfast agreement was endorsed by the people and should not have been changed without their consent. The amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend would restore a key element of the Belfast agreement and deserves your Lordships’ support.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to the three amendments in this group. I shall start with the third of them, Amendment 4, which has been spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Rogan. They and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, have talked about going back to, or resetting, the Good Friday agreement, which, as has just been pointed out, had the support of the people in a referendum—not something that happened subsequently—and there is great strength in that. The noble Lord also referred to the situation at the time, which was still overshadowed by the terrorist campaign.
For me, there were two issues about which I disagreed with Prime Minister Blair in the negotiation right up to the very last day. The first was that, in my view, decommissioning and the release of prisoners should have been related. I was quite prepared to go down the road of releasing of prisoners so long as the matériel that they had used and might use was decommissioned. The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach failed to achieve that agreement and all of us suffered for some years after that in addressing that question. That was why the IMC was established—I spent some years working on that.
The other issue was so-called parallel consent, which had actually emerged as a formula from the experience of South Africa, where it was not a formula but an understanding. It was always my view that to identify people as “unionists, nationalists and other” was a mistake, and to draw up an electoral formula based on that would make the situation more problematic. However, I had another proposal: a proposal for a majority of two-thirds—in other words, 67%. It was clear to me that no one party and no one part of the community could pass a piece of legislation if it had to get over two-thirds.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, I support, in general terms, the amendments that have been proposed by my noble friends and by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. They carry me back to past events. I was the first First Minister when Seamus and I were elected. We both regarded it as very important that we should be elected jointly, because that would carry to the public the image and the reality that we were going to work together and with due regard to the views of the various parties. Consequently, I am very much in favour of returning to that. In the circumstances, I would be pleasantly surprised if the Government did so, and it would be a good thing for them to do.
I have some reservations about the references in Amendment 3 to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister as “Joint First Ministers”. They have the same powers, but the difference in terminology is a matter of who goes first into a room and who speaks first. It is a formal matter. The Lib Dems’ representative in the Commons may not realise that precedence matters. I leave you to reflect on that. Precedence matters, and speaking first makes a difference, even if you are speaking on the same subjects.
Some of the other things that have been mentioned in passing here reminded me of when we were in office later and could see that the opinions of the electorate were shifting. We were thinking about the position of Sinn Féin, so we quietly sent a little message to Sinn Féin saying that it should reflect on whether it could provide a Deputy First Minister who would be acceptable to the public. I notice that it has followed that in the way in which it has handled things in the Assembly.
As to the points from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, about what might happen on or after an election, just wait and see. Do not jump to conclusions in the way you are at the moment, because it is not particularly useful.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I rise only briefly on this issue to concur with some of the comments that have been made. As the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, there is always some hesitation on the part of those who were not there to revisit some of these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, made a point about those who compromised and found that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was not perfect. Perfection can often be the enemy of any progress at all, so I have enormous admiration for those who were able to compromise to reach what has been a long-standing and impressive agreement. Along with others who have spoken, I put on record my tributes to those who were mentioned.
I saw the Minister wince slightly when the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, talked about how much more confidence he has that there may be some progress on various issues now that the Minister is there. My only comment is: no pressure there then. I could tell him not to worry about it, because this is an issue where people want to and can find agreement, and there is always good will in the discussions. I remember, during direct rule, when I took over from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that he was nothing but courteous and helpful to me when I was making my way as a Minister in Northern Ireland.
We are very supportive of what the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Suttie, and the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Rogan, are trying to achieve with these amendments. There is value to a more consensual approach to this, as the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, outlined, but I suspect the Minister will say that this discussion is for outside this Bill, because the Bill is to progress issues in the NDNA. Nevertheless, I think there is an opportunity for the Minister to reflect on the comments that have been made. Even if they are not for this Bill, there could and should be discussions on them to see if further progress can be made and if there are benefits to taking such an approach.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I am listening intently to this debate and I am beginning to wonder if I live in Northern Ireland at all or if I lived there during the making of the Belfast agreement. We have heard all the woes being poured on to the St Andrews agreement. That is unkind to say the least. If politics has been—and it is—sectarianised in Northern Ireland, it was the Belfast agreement that did that. The Belfast agreement said, “You must nominate as a unionist or a nationalist”. That did not come out of St Andrews; it was the brainchild of the Belfast agreement.
Furthermore, during the early stages of the Government and the Assembly in Northern Ireland, it was all stop-go. The Assembly was more in abeyance than it was working at that time. It has to be said—I am not sure that it gives me a lot of pleasure to say it—that during the time when Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness were First and Deputy First Ministers there was more cohesion within the Assembly and it had a longer duration of continued government. It was also Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness who had to stand together and condemn the shooting of a police officer by dissident republicans. Those of us who live there can well remember that. Those were extremely difficult times. If there ever was a time when government could have fallen apart, it was at that time, but it was due to the influence of Peter Robinson and the late Martin McGuinness that government continued, though not without difficulties.
I hasten to add that I do not think there will ever come a day when anyone, irrespective of what position they take, can stand confidently and say, “The Assembly is here for ever and a day.” I have said that often in public meetings. It is the type of animal that is going to be always trying and will come through its difficulties. But please do not say that all the problems emanate from the St Andrews agreement. That remark does not sit well at all.
There are those who want to blame some other exercise for the position that the Assembly finds itself in from time to time. Decommissioning has been mentioned. We, and those who wanted to listen, were told that the release of republican prisoners was never in the agreement. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, was the closest to it when he said that he had conditioned it by saying that if that had to happen—I do not want to misquote him—then it was on the proviso that the weaponry that was used would be decommissioned and put away. Let me say this clearly: when decommissioning did not happen and the prisoners were released, we were told that that was never signed up to. Let us not paint a picture that was not real at that time. I know that, when you look back on these things with hindsight, you can think things through and say, “Well, we should have done this and we should have done that.” Maybe we are all in that position from time to time, but let us not paint it as if it was something different.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, I am conscious that I speak to this group of amendments surrounded by a number of people who were directly responsible for the negotiation of the 1998 agreement. Like her, I pay tribute to them for an agreement which, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, mentioned, is not perfect but has been the bedrock of the relative peace, stability and progress that Northern Ireland has enjoyed over the past 23 years.
The noble Baroness mentioned wincing: I was probably wincing at the prospect of living up to the expectations of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, but I will endeavour to do my best and I am grateful to him for his kind words.
I thank my noble friend Lord Empey and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, for their amendments and the debate that they have generated around the shape of power-sharing and the appointment of the First and Deputy First Ministers. Personally, I am sympathetic to a number of the points that were made in the debate and I dare say that they will be raised again on many occasions in the future, but I respectfully suggest that the Bill is not necessarily the right vehicle in which to address them.
As noble Lords are aware—they will probably be tired of hearing me repeat this—the purpose of the Bill and the reason we are here today is to legislate for commitments made to support the institutions under the New Decade, New Approach deal. These amendments take us somewhat beyond that, even though the issues that they contain have been debated extensively in many talks processes over recent years.
I will discuss each amendment in turn but will make an overarching point. The basis for political progress in Northern Ireland, dating back to the 1990s, has been what is known as the sufficient consensus rule, which is that any important changes to institutions, including even the establishment of the institutions, require sufficient consensus, which means, in effect, the support of parties commanding a majority of unionism and a majority of nationalism. Although a number of proposals in the amendments on the Marshalled List have had significant support in recent talks processes, certainly the ones that I have been involved in, they have not reached that threshold of sufficient consensus in order to be enacted.
On Amendment 2, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, said that the intention was to restore the provision made under the Belfast agreement for the joint election by the Assembly of the First and Deputy First Ministers. I suggest that the amendment goes rather beyond what was agreed in 1998, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, picked up. The 1998 model, as noble Lords will know, appointed the First and Deputy First Ministers on a cross-community basis of parallel consent only, whereas the noble Baroness has included the further cross-community arrangement of a weighted majority of members present and voting. As I say, that goes somewhat beyond what was agreed in 1998.
Amendment 4, in the name of my noble friend Lord Empey, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, seeks to return the process back to the 1998 model set out in the Belfast agreement by reverting to the original wording of Section 16 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. My noble friend will not be surprised to hear me say that I have a huge amount of sympathy for both his amendment and his argument. I am on the record publicly as stating my own belief that the 1998 model was a better model than the one that was agreed at St Andrews. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, who negotiated that agreement, is not present today. I do not doubt for one second his good intentions in changing the appointment mechanism; I just personally believe that the 1998 model was a better one and more accurately reflected the joint nature of the office. So I have considerable sympathy with my noble friend.
However, as I said earlier, we have had discussions around this in the Stormont House negotiations, in the Fresh Start negotiations and in a number of the working groups that led to the New Decade, New Approach agreement. There has not yet been sufficient consensus to go back to the old model—the original model—so ably negotiated by my noble friends Lord Trimble and Lord Empey. I regret that but, unfortunately, and to borrow the phrase that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, used on a previous occasion in this Room, we are where we are.
Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, provides that the First and Deputy First Ministers should be referred to as “Joint First Ministers”. Again, I have been involved in talks processes over the years where this issue has been raised, but there has not been sufficient consensus. The comments of my noble friend Lord Trimble suggest that there still is not sufficient agreement around this particular issue to change it, and certainly not in this Bill.
None of this is to say that the Government are opposed to change in the future. As I said at Second Reading, the Belfast agreement, while containing a number of enduring principles, has continued to evolve as a result of successor agreements. Where parties can reach widespread agreement on further changes, consistent with the underlying principles, the Government would be open to making those changes. However, I do not think that they are for this Bill, which is a very narrowly focused Bill to implement New Decade, New Approach, which was itself an important milestone in restoring devolved government in Northern Ireland. On that basis, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have contributed to this wide-ranging debate on these three amendments, which stand variously in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Empey, Lord Rogan, Lord Alderdice, Lord Trimble and Lord Morrow, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Smith. We are all coming from our different perspectives, but we all want to see that sense of partnership and of working together and to think about how we achieve that. For my part, I believe that it can best be achieved through the Good Friday agreement and subsequent legislation.
We all have memories in Northern Ireland and, because of our political perspectives, we come forward with the overlay of those memories, so I just caution noble Lords in that respect.
I know that the Minister does not see this Bill as the vehicle for dealing with these issues, as it simply for implementing New Decade, New Approach. I respect that viewpoint, but I know that certain elements of New Decade, New Approach are still outstanding and are, shall we say, outwith this Bill and are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive; I do not necessarily see much progress in relation to those areas. But I am heartened that, if I have got the Minister’s words correct, the Government are not opposed to some change in the future. I ask the Minister to go back and reflect on the views conveyed today and to have discussions with the Secretary of State and Minister of State. Perhaps he could come back on Report and indicate how the Government intend to move forward in respect of Amendments 2 to 4, whether in this piece of legislation or another.
I do not think that the political infrastructure and the politics of Northern Ireland can wait much longer. We have to get back to the central issues in the agreement of consent, agreement, consensus building, working together, partnership, reconciliation and building that shared society which we so earnestly yearn for.
Rather hesitantly—but I know the procedure in Committee—I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Alderdice
“Disqualification of MPs and Members of the Dáil Éireann for membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly
(1) In section 1A of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (members of the House of Commons)—(a) in subsection (1), for “the period of 8 days beginning with the day the person is so returned” substitute “the period beginning with the day on which the person is so returned and ending with the day on which Parliament is next dissolved”, and(b) for subsections (2) to (4) substitute—“(2) Where a person is returned as a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and is subsequently returned as a member of the House of Commons, the person is not disqualified under section 1(1)(za) at any time in the period beginning with the day on which the person is so returned and ending with the day on which Parliament is next dissolved.”(2) In section 1B of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (members of the Dáil Éireann)—(a) the existing text becomes subsection (1),(b) in that subsection, for “at any time in the period of 8 days beginning with the day the person is so returned” substitute “before Dáil Éireann is next dissolved”, and(c) after that subsection insert—“(2) Where a person is returned as a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and is subsequently returned as a member of the Dáil Éireann, the person is not disqualified under section 1(1)(db) at any time in the period beginning with the day on which the person is so returned and ending with the day on which the Dáil is next dissolved.””
Lord Alderdice (LD)
Noble Lords will know that, for some time, I have harboured a degree of anxiety that the fragmentation which we see much more largely in politics around the world and in Europe is affecting the United Kingdom, and that there is a danger that some of the relationships which have stitched us together over the years as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are being shaken and loosened up. There are things that we need to do and to pay attention to that will hold that fabric together. For example, I was pleased to see the Lord Speaker going to Northern Ireland and meeting people there—that is a helpful development, and I am sure that he will carry that forward; I have no doubt that he will take himself to Scotland before long, and I hope he goes to Wales as well.
It is because of this concern that I am also on the lookout for other things that can be done to help hold us together. When the Northern Ireland Assembly was being set up, it was extremely helpful to have people from Northern Ireland who were experienced in Westminster, in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, who understood what being a legislator was about. There were many others who had no experience in politics or, if they had experience, it was at local government level, which is a completely different exercise. I found myself doing quite a lot of work with some quite experienced councillors to help them realise that the exercise of executive responsibility in a council was very different from the exercise of legislative responsibility in a Parliament or Assembly.
Over a few years, people began to get concerned about what became called “double-jobbing”. In the early days, they did not have much concern about it; there were some people who were not just double-jobbing but triple-jobbing and more, and they had to be very busy in getting themselves about the place. The problem arose when people began to look at the pay being accumulated by some of those who were in more than one place. There was a lot of concern and anxiety and some anger about that, and it affected some electoral outcomes. So there was a move, as is very often the case in politics, to the other end of things and to saying, “We shouldn’t have any double-jobbing at all.” The result was legislation which meant that, at the drop of a hat—or, one might say, more like a guillotine, at the drop of a head—when someone was elected to another place, within eight days they lost their right to sit, initially in the House of Commons and then, much later, the House of Lords. Legislation was passed, and it goes quite considerably back, to make the practice impossible and there would be an eight-day period when the change would have to be made.
For many people it is not necessarily a huge problem, but it does seem to make it difficult for people to move from the Assembly to the House of Commons, to this place and indeed to Dáil Éireann, and for people in those other parliaments, such as Dáil Éireann and the House of Commons, to move back to the Assembly. This means that things are becoming siloed. It is not quite like that in Scotland, and even in Wales there is around a year’s leeway, so the problem is specific to Northern Ireland. Frankly, it is not very helpful. I understand why it has happened and I understand that things can be abused, but it has created a siloing of people into the Assembly, the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament, and away from Parliament here and indeed in Dublin.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, this is an important issue, and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has set out very clearly the reasoning that lies behind the amendment.
I will come on to the remuneration point in a moment but, as someone who benefited politically from being able to sit in the House of Commons and in the Assembly, as did most Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland at that time—I think all but one MP was also a Member of the Assembly and some held ministerial office, as indeed I did—I know that it provided a bridge between what was happening here in Westminster and Whitehall and the Northern Ireland Assembly. That meant the Assembly was not deprived—I would not necessarily say of “talent”—of experience and knowledge of the political process, certainly of the negotiations that had led up to the settlement. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, as Speaker, was also a Member of this place, which, again, provided heft and authority to the office of Speaker.
On the remuneration point, it needs to be borne in mind that Members of Parliament who were also Members of the Assembly received only one-third of their Assembly pay and, indeed, in the end received no salary whatever for being in the Assembly, so it was not particularly beneficial from a remuneration point of view to sit in both places. It also has to be borne in mind—not to rehearse the arguments about the issue because that has now been settled—that at every election the electorate had an opportunity to make their decision, in the full knowledge of the mandates that people held, about whether they thought a person was suitable to be a Member of Parliament or a Member of the Assembly. In most cases, the electorate made their decision very firmly.
We are at the point where we accept that the principle you should be either a Member of Parliament or a Member of a devolved assembly is now well established and I am not seeking to reverse that, but what the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is seeking to do is to address this hard edge so that we have a transition to enable that flow of membership to happen, but not in a way that creates unintended consequences, to bring us in Northern Ireland into line certainly with Scotland and to a large extent with Wales.
I think this is a sensible amendment. On the point that it is not part of the NDNA agreement, it is not, but this provision about how so-called double-jobbing should end was part of the Conservative manifesto in 2010 and was implemented in 2014. The speedy implementation of manifesto commitments was once again on display. That was beyond the NDNA. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has set out very clearly that this is something that needs to be addressed and this Bill is a good vehicle in which to do it.
If the Minister is minded to deploy the argument that this Bill is about the NDNA only and nothing else, I say gently to him that this is not how the Government have approached other issues. They have on occasion moved, and are currently considering moving, on issues and legislating on issues that do not have agreement among the parties in Northern Ireland. One thinks first of the timing of the bringing forward of the cultural package under NDNA, which is entirely a matter for the devolved Assembly. It is nothing to do with Westminster. It is a matter for the Assembly, yet the Government have indicated that they are minded to legislate on it here without any agreement on the timing; I shall not going to go into the substance of it, as it is a different matter. Secondly, on abortion, whatever one’s views may be on the issue, it is clearly an entirely devolved matter. There is no agreement on that issue among the parties in Northern Ireland or in the Assembly, yet the Government are going to legislate on it. Indeed, they have legislated on it. If the Government are going to use the argument that these things have to be done by agreement, that they are going to change things only by agreement and that they will not do anything that is against the agreement of the parties in Northern Ireland, that needs to be consistent.
No doubt when the Minister comes to speak, he will claim credit for the provisions against double-jobbing because he was instrumental in that matter at that time. The reasons why it was done are fully understood in the context of the time, but this amendment would remedy a gap in how it is implemented—that is the important thing—and provide for a proper transition period.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, having heard what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Dodds, I think this is a very sensible amendment and I hope it will be accepted by the Government.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I also accept this amendment and declare an interest, in that I am a former MP and Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, who served in both for a short time. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, that this amendment would prevent a cliff edge from happening, because those who are Members of the Assembly and of Parliament—and many of my colleagues were a Member of Parliament and then became a Member of the Assembly—brought with them a knowledge of legislative procedure. The Northern Ireland Assembly was very different from councils, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said. It was about bringing forward and scrutinising legislation so, in the early days, it was important to have people of experience there.
I am opposed to double-jobbing, but this amendment brings a transitional phase that would help the situation. I recall an election count for the Assembly in 2016, when my colleague Colin McGrath, who had been a member of Newry, Mourne and Down council, was elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The chief executive of the council arrived at the same time as Colin McGrath was elected and asked for his letter of resignation and his computer to be handed over there and then. Whereupon Colin McGrath said, “That indicated that you thought I was going to be elected and it was very august of you to think that. But I am not in a position to do either of those things this evening. You will get them on Monday morning”.
What currently exists gives officials an upper hand, of which people may not have been aware, to execute their responsibilities and feel mighty important. I think there is a case for this amendment, in that it provides for the transitional phase, and allows for that essential knowledge to be carried through and for people to bed down while they transfer to their new situation in a fully pledged way. Then it allows for their replacements to be selected and take their place in the Assembly. It is all done not according to a list system, as it was originally, but from internal systems within parties. We are undergoing one in South Down at the minute, and they can cause consternation among friends and colleagues by creating unnecessary rivalry.
It is important that people concentrate on issues, legislation, scrutiny and investigation, rather than who is going to replace who. That is not good politics, in the truest sense of the word, and is not about service and delivery. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, would make sure of continuity in transition, and of concentration on legislation and the issues that matter to people and on which they expect their elected representatives to deliver for them.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for moving Amendment 5 on dual mandates. I am afraid my noble friend Lord Dodds knows me too well on this issue, because I am about to confess to a degree of mea culpa for putting us in this position in the first place. As my noble friend pointed out, the promise to stop the practice of double-jobbing or dual mandates was a commitment made in the 2010 Conservative and Unionist Northern Ireland manifesto, when my party and that of my noble friend Lord Empey put up joint candidates at the general election. I am afraid I actually drafted that section of the manifesto, along with a speech by David Cameron, given at La Mon House on the eve of the poll in 2010, in which he promised to end the scandal of double-jobbing. So my noble friend is absolutely correct.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. He is right, I did say that I was not going to stand over all aspects of the wording because it is quite a complex thing to get right. I referred to the Minister’s experience in Northern Ireland. That will have given him an insight into the kind of ingenuity of Northern Ireland politicians over the years to find ways around nearly everything that gets proposed. The whole notion of consent Motions has come back to us again, when, at the time that was drafted, we thought it was a very reasonable and appropriate thing—which it was, but it was not without potential loopholes.
I am more than happy to allow this to go back to the Minister and his officials for them to try to find their way through this technical maze. He is absolutely right about the intention and I am grateful to him for accepting it and for the spirit in which he is accepting it. I look forward to a redrafted amendment coming forward in the not-too-distant future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would add the re-establishment of a consultative Civic Forum for Northern Ireland, to enable the Assembly to obtain views on social, economic and cultural matters as envisaged in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998, to the matters that Ministers must have regard to under the Ministerial code.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this is another probing amendment, which I hope the Minister will look on favourably. The amendment requires Ministers to consider the re-establishment of the Civic Forum for Northern Ireland as one of the issues
“that Ministers must have regard to under the Ministerial code.”
Noble Lords will be aware that the Civic Forum was provided for by strand 1 of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. At the time it comprised representatives of business, trade unions and the voluntary sector. I believe the voluntary sector was the largest part, with 18 members. There were members from agriculture and fisheries, arts and sports, business, the churches, community relations, culture, education, trade unions and also those who identified as victims of terrorism. It met 12 times in total between 2000 and 2002; then, of course, the institutions were suspended.
We raised this at Second Reading in looking at parts of the Good Friday agreement where, despite good intentions and agreements that were made, those agreements have not been fulfilled. That comes back to the point we were discussing earlier on New Decade, New Approach. It is difficult when agreement is reached but the implementation becomes somewhat elusive at some point, as I know noble Lords will be aware.
There is an opportunity, when people get disillusioned with politics—and Northern Ireland’s politics are perhaps more difficult than those anywhere else in the UK at times—for communities and the public to engage better with issues and debates, particularly when issues are cross-community or there are community differences, to have a full discussion and debate without any time constraints or legislation, just to look at things and talk things through. It is about engagement. When trust in politics is low—particularly, as we have seen, with Christmas parties and other issues—anything that engages people to understand and be part of the process, even slightly at arm’s length, can be an advantage.
When this was debated in the other place, my colleague Alex Davies-Jones said:
“The Good Friday agreement was about a new participative politics.”
The Minister will be aware that
“The argument the Women’s Coalition put forward for a civic forum was as an advisory second chamber”—
not unlike your Lordships’ House, but perhaps with even less authority than your Lordships’ House—
“designed to give the trade union movement and businesses, as well as the community and the women’s movement, a place in political policy making. The prize of that expertise and knowledge is a durable solution that keeps communities on board, one that I hope will be considered going forward.”—[Official Report, Commons, 26/10/21; col. 169.]
When it was debated in the other place, the Minister did not respond to this or give any answer. I am raising it today is in the hope that the Minister will have something more to say about this and any views the Government may have. I raise this as quite often in government thinking—I exclude the Minister from this entirely—Northern Ireland has been an afterthought. We saw it with Brexit; people did not fully realise the implications for Northern Ireland and it was never talked about during the whole Brexit debate, as we will probably hear about later. There is a need for leadership and proactive interest in Northern Ireland. Looking at issues such as reinstating the Civic Forum could be extremely beneficial. I really want to test where the Minister, on behalf of the Government, is on this one.
We will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and I do not want to pre-empt anything she will say. However, looking at her amendment, which I am sure she will speak to in a moment, there is quite an interesting debate. If you look at the current designations in the Assembly, there are 40 unionists, 39 nationalists and 11 other, and it is quite possible that in the future a different kind of balance could be returned. I want to listen to what she has to say on this, but the general question of designations, how they work and what that means for power-sharing is a worthwhile discussion for your Lordships to be having and indeed for the Minister to respond to. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say and to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 7 in my name is intended, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, just said, as a probing amendment designed to give the Committee the opportunity to discuss the issue of designations. As I said previously, perhaps in response to the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, I talk about some of these issues with a degree of hesitancy when there is quite so much experience in the Room. However, as someone who has been following Northern Ireland politics now for several years, I none the less feel that these are issues worthy of debate. I also declare an interest as a member of the Northern Ireland Alliance Party.
As noble Lords will know, under the Assembly’s standing orders one of the very first things Members of the Assembly are required to do is to enter in the roll a designation of identity: nationalist, unionist or other—my colleagues in the Alliance Party always have to put themselves in as “other”. Designations are required for the operation of cross-community votes in the Assembly. Cross-community support is required for a number of matters in the Assembly, including the election of the Speaker, changing the standing orders, and agreeing that a reserved matter should become a transferred matter and vice versa. However, the operation of cross-community votes means that the votes of some Assembly Members count twice, whereas others count only once. Under the current calculations, the votes of nationalist and unionist MLAs count twice. If an MLA is designated as other, their vote counts only in determining either the support of the majority of Members or the support of 60% of Members voting.
Why is that important? It is not just that there is an inherent unfairness in the system as I have described it but I believe there is also a broader principle at stake; that is, more than 20 years after the signing of the 1998 agreement, why are we continuing with a system that perpetuates divisions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said, rather than creating a system that brings people together? In speaking to my friends in Northern Ireland, many of whom are political but some of whom are not, I am increasingly struck by the desire for a united society where everyone is treated equally, and yet the Assembly continues to represent institutionalised division through the outdated designation system. Northern Ireland has moved on considerably since the Good Friday/Belfast agreement was signed. Increasingly, a growing number of people do not want to be identified by community backgrounds. Northern Ireland society is becoming more mixed and more diverse. If we want seriously to increase participation in Northern Ireland politics, particularly from those with ethnic backgrounds, and make Northern Ireland politics more diverse, we should recognise that those who are not traditional unionists or nationalists are not second-class.
I am sure that the Minister will say that once again this is beyond the scope of the Bill. None the less, the purpose of this probing amendment is to ask the question: when do we think that politics in Northern Ireland can begin to normalise and move forward?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 6, to which I have added my name. I also see merit in the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, although I see that as an area where a manner of negotiations would be required, which I suggest might happen in the post-election scenario. I recall my colleague, Mark Durkan, at a meeting of the British-Irish Association in 2008 talking about the removal of the “ugly scaffolding”—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Caine, was there that evening. In the fullness of time, the Good Friday agreement was meant to evolve and our society was meant to evolve, through working together, through partnership, through the consent principle and through agreement. We have not necessarily achieved that position, but it is an area where further negotiations might be required.
I support the idea that Ministers should have to take account of the need for and the views of a civic forum. I recall the original Civic Forum that was established as a result of the agreement and the Northern Ireland Act back in 1998. I know many people who were involved in that and made a contribution, from the trade union movement and from civic society, from farming and fishing, because they were policy focused. That can only be good, because they bring their knowledge and their experience, which no doubt can inform Assembly Members and Ministers of the issues that are pertinent at a particular time. In my old constituency of South Down, such issues might be agriculture and fisheries. Nothing lasts for ever; things change, and Brexit was obviously a major change in terms of fishing. People involved directly in those industries can add much, and there is a role for the civic forum, but, more importantly, for Ministers to have due regard to what is said in that. There have been very powerful tools in the form of citizens’ assemblies in the Republic of Ireland, which have helped to change and mould society as it has developed.
I have received a copy of a letter that was sent to the then chair, or former chair, of the Executive Office, who was making inquiries about the outstanding issues of New Decade, New Approach. Reference was made in that agreement to a civic advisory panel, which would be not unlike a civic forum. New Decade, New Approach states:
“The parties recognise the value of structured and flexible engagement with civic society to assist the Government to solve complex policy issues. The Parties have agreed that the existing Compact Civic Advisory Panel should be reformed to include a renewed membership appointed within 6 months”—
that should have been by June 2020—
“by way of a Public Appointments process.”
It is to be noted that this remains an outstanding commitment which was interrupted by the impact of Covid on public engagement generally. The letter to which I referred, from October 2021, stated that work would be initiated to enable the panel, subject to the availability of supporting resources, to come into operation as soon as circumstances permitted to fulfil its intended remit as effectively as possible. I see that as a staging post on the way to the establishment of a civic forum by way of this legislation.
It is interesting that the civic advisory panel has not yet been established. Surely the impetus should have been Covid and the need for an organisation such as that, consisting of people from the trade union movement, civic society, health and social services, the economy, business and manufacturing, and from the retail organisations, to discuss the ingredients of what was required in a Covid recovery plan and help inform Ministers and Members of the Assembly of the most up-to-date thinking in this regard.
While I speak in support of both amendments, recognising that a new set of negotiations would be required in terms of Amendment 7, I ask the Minister: where is the civic advisory panel? Will the Minister and the Government talk urgently to the Northern Ireland Executive about the establishment of this panel? It would only be of benefit, and not a hindrance or impediment, as sometimes Members in the Assembly and even Ministers could think, but they should always see things in terms of compromises and solutions. I support both amendments.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will just say something briefly on Clause 4 and the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. A civic forum sounds brilliant, does it not? But I am really not sure what we mean by a civic forum. I presume that this is a probing amendment, because clearly we could not support something where we have no real idea of how anyone would get on to it; who would be representing who; what the rules would be; whether they would get paid to come—would someone coming up from Londonderry/Derry get their fair pay?—or whether it would move around and people would be moving around with it.
I think this is one of those ideas that sound great but in practice would become just another group of people—mainly the same people, probably, who are already involved in politics in the wider sense in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is quite a small place, as those of us who come from there know, and everybody knows everybody, really. Wherever you go, people know somebody who knows somebody—probably sometimes they are even a relative. I am therefore not quite sure how this would work. We have, for example, a very strong Women’s Institute in Northern Ireland, where WI groups meet in the country areas regularly and do great work; we have the Young Farmers’ Clubs; we have all sorts of other organisations already, such as residents, tenants and community associations; and a huge amount of work is being done by churches and community groups. I am just not sure about introducing another layer of supposed democracy and accountability—I am not sure who it would be accountable to, anyway.
I hope that the Minister will treat this with great care, because it is one of those things that sounds good and could be set up, but then we discover that it is in fact pretty meaningless and does not do anything to move things forward in Northern Ireland.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this, but I just want to pick up on some of the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has just said. We know exactly how such a thing would be established, because it was—it was running. When I was the Speaker, I met regularly with Chris Gibson, who was the chair of the Civic Forum, so this is not some kind of thing where we can say, “We’re really not sure what it is, how it will happen or where it would be”—it was operating. The puzzle is not whether it could operate, but why, as a part of the agreement that was voted on, it stopped operating.
There is an argument that it could have done more at the time. One of the discussions that I had with Chris Gibson as chair was to encourage him to take more initiative in enabling the forum to do things. My goodness, we sit in the House of Lords, which is in itself not entirely different from this proposition, which is that you have people who are not always involved directly and immediately in party politics but nevertheless have a role to play.
Therefore, I just flag up, after what the noble Baroness says about being puzzled as we do not know what it would be like or who would be appointed and so on, that it was in fact in place.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
Twenty years ago, indeed. The agreement itself, which is the basis for the Assembly, from 20 years ago, was the basis for the Civic Forum as well. The puzzle is how it has been possible to talk about implementation of the agreement and not talk about something that was voted on and supported in a referendum. I just flag that up.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, Northern Ireland has nearly 500 councillors, 18 MPs, 90 MLAs and Members of the House of Lords. We would need another tier of advisers. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said about knowing how the forum would operate because it has operated in the past. However, I suggest to noble Lords that we did not know how members were appointed because the same grouping of people seems to be appointed to whatever body is going to be thought of next. It never widens out to Johnny Citizen; it seems to be that same stratum of people.
At a time when we have no money for health, education, agriculture or roads—they are nothing but potholes; we cannot get tar and we cannot get them properly looked after—we would like to expend more money on having people travelling around the countryside on an extra body. I suggest to the Minister that now is not the time to be spending more money on another tier. Spending money on many of the things that the people of Northern Ireland are crying out for, whether that be education, health, agriculture or the environment, would be a better use of public finance.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, the Civic Forum may certainly have been a good idea 20 years ago, but I am not too sure that it would work in today’s politics. I remember the forum. In fact, on occasions it was in opposition to much of the work that the Assembly was doing at the time.
I am not too sure that it worked that well 20 years ago. I am not sure it represented all shades of opinion out there, and there were issues around some of the people who were appointed and how they were appointed. It goes along with the serving and all of that. Now it would be wrong to add a further layer of government in Northern Ireland, with everything else that is going on.
We can argue whether or not the Civic Forum did a good job while it was there, but when I look back those 20 years, I am not too sure that it exactly helped politics in Northern Ireland or helped the Assembly to move on, because, as I have said, on fairly major issues it was almost in opposition to the Assembly and the work that it was doing then, during a very difficult period. I am not too sure that a civic forum would work in the present-day politics of Northern Ireland.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I am on the side of the forum sceptics, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. Some obvious questions arise. It existed briefly and quite a long time ago. Is there any obvious demand in Northern Ireland for its recreation? My experience, which was not recent but was not inconsiderable some years ago, was that there never seemed to be any difficulty for elected representatives in Northern Ireland—as has been mentioned, a fairly small part of our country—to find out what businessmen, trades unionists, farmers and indeed a variety of people of different occupations and backgrounds thought. My experience of Northern Ireland was that farmers, businessmen and tradespeople were only too anxious to come forward with their views and make them known directly to their elected representatives. One of the glories of politics in Northern Ireland is the approachability of politicians and the close connection between them and the people who they would represent in a civic forum. It would be hard to make such a forum anything more than a talking shop whose purpose and conclusions had uncertain status and could lead to complication and confusion, not to better government in Northern Ireland.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Basildon and Lady Suttie, for the amendments in this group.
I shall begin with Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. I acknowledge the importance of civic engagement to politics in Northern Ireland and I recall that at times of political difficulty in the past civil society has played an important role in trying to move things forward. Indeed, in the discussions that ultimately led to New Decade, New Approach, there was a body called “Make it Work”, which was a collection of people from across civil society in Northern Ireland. It had a positive impact on the political debate, bringing about a situation in which, eventually, the institutions were re-established.
However, I gently suggest to the noble Baroness that, interesting as her amendment is, using the ministerial code, which essentially deals with ministerial behaviour, as a vehicle for pushing forward policy outcomes and for public policy purposes might not be appropriate.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, we all know that the Civic Forum provided for in the 1998 agreement and the 1998 Act last met in 2002. Since then, various proposals have been put forward to revive it or something akin to it. The Stormont House agreement, in which I was involved seven years ago, almost to the day, proposed a more compact civic advisory panel. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, made clear, New Decade, New Approach proposed that that the existing compact civic advisory panel be reformed to include a renewed membership appointed by way of a public appointments process within six months of the Executive returning. This panel, whenever it is established, will be invited to propose the most appropriate model of engagement on specific issues, including one citizens’ assembly a year.
Having listened to the debate and taken on board the contributions of noble Lords across the Committee, including the noble Lords, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown and Lord Hay of Ballyore, and my noble friend Lord Lexden—who I am delighted to see in his place today, as he interviewed me for my first job 34 years ago in the Conservative research department—I note that this is a matter on which there are clearly differences of opinion.
In summary, I hope that the Executive will make progress on what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, about the time that has elapsed since the re-establishment of the Executive. These are primarily matters for the Executive. I should also point out that the Civic Forum is already legislated for in Section 56 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, so I am not sure that further legislation in this respect is required when it is already on the statute book. On that basis, I urge the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, seeks to change the definition of “cross-community support” in a way that goes beyond the proposals to reform the petition of concern in New Decade, New Approach, although I appreciate that the noble Baroness’s purpose in tabling the amendment is to have a broader debate on designations in the Assembly. That was brought out in noble Lords’ contributions. I point out that, if we were to move to the model as drafted in her amendment, it would give a small minority of MLAs who designate themselves “other” a veto across a wide range of Assembly business and, indeed, could almost paralyse the entire functioning of the Assembly. While I appreciate that these are important matters for debate, the amendment would be defective in operation.
I also appreciate that the current system of designation has not always been universally popular or accepted. In her comments, the noble Baroness reflected the long-standing position of the Alliance Party in Northern Ireland, which has consistently argued, over many years, that the designation system institutionalises sectarianism. It has proposed a move away from that and the introduction of weighed majorities, along with a move away from mandatory coalition to a more voluntary arrangement.
Whatever the merits of these—and one thing I am not going to do is speculate on the possible outcome of the Assembly election in May—the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear me say that they are not changes that this House can unilaterally make during the passage of this Bill. At the time of the 1998 agreement, the current arrangements were considered the best way to secure cross-community consent for legislation. If, in the future, there should be sufficient consensus—I return to that phrase time and again—to move away from the current designation system to an updated model, we would be happy to look again at this question, but I suggest that this is not quite the moment and urge the noble Baroness not to move her amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Indeed, my amendment is probing. I think I said at the beginning that all the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Coaker are probing amendments to tease out a bit more of the Government’s thinking on a number of these issues. That has not always been easy, and I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to respond. Had the Minister in the House of Commons responded on this point when it was put to him, we would not have felt the need to raise it today.
For us, this is an issue about trust and engagement in the political process, which all want to see improved across the UK. There are certainly areas where it is lacking. As the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, would say, too often it is the usual subjects. The whole point of something like this is to try to avoid the usual subjects and to reach out to people who do not always feel that their voice is heard, but have a contribution to make. That is something for which we should all strive at different times, however we are engaged in political life and at whatever level.
I am grateful to the Minister. It was never my intention to push this further, but it is useful to get the Government’s thinking and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hoey
“(9) This section has effect notwithstanding section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. (10) No inference is to be drawn from subsection (9) as to whether this section would otherwise have effect subject to section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment at subsection (9) would ensure that s7A of the 2018 Act cannot transport the requirements within the Protocol into domestic law, and thus nullify the cross community consent mechanisms.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am sorry that this amendment came in rather late. I thought there were going to be two days in Committee, and I had checked that I would be able to put something in today. I am very grateful to the Public Bill Office for its support.
Amendment 7A in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, is designed to restore the balance at the heart of the Belfast agreement. The agreement has been unbalanced by the manner in which the protocol has sought to nullify cross-community protections to prevent them being utilised by unionists to vote down the protocol. This has been accepted by the Government’s barristers in the High Court as subjugating the Acts of Union. The very essence of the union is being subjugated by the protocol. How can any Peer who values the union stand over that approach?
The Government in the Command Paper and in subsequent contributions by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, have conceded that the protocol has no consent from the unionist community and identified that as a core problem. It is therefore time to restore the fundamental balance and cross-community protections inherent within the Belfast agreement. In the absence of those core pillars being restored, there is no basis for any pro-union person to continue to support the agreement. This amendment would restore the principle of cross-community consent for key decisions, which is a core commitment in strand 1(5)(d) of the Belfast agreement. The Committee will note that this relates to any key decisions coming before the Assembly.
Later there were efforts to create some technical loophole to justify demolishing this cross-community consent mechanism for the protocol vote because, it is claimed, it is not devolved. As noble Lords will know, the Secretary of State by regulations unilaterally amended the 1998 Act by inserting Section 56A and Schedule 6A. That has the effect of disapplying cross-community consent. In practical terms it is designed to nullify cross-community protections being utilised in this case by unionists. Can this Committee and noble Lords imagine for a moment the outcry there would be if the Northern Ireland Act was unilaterally amended to nullify cross-community protections for nationalists?
We have heard much talk of protecting the Belfast agreement. What that really seems to mean is protecting certain aspects of the Belfast agreement and certain interests in the agreement—namely, those who have more of a nationalist view. All those who claim adherence to the Belfast agreement should support it in all its parts. That means the protections must apply every bit as much for those who are pro-union.
This amendment restores the fundamental principle of cross-community consent and the ultimate outworking of that is that, if these amendments are passed, come 2024—though I hope it is gone long before that—the protocol cannot continue in the absence of a resolution which commands cross-community support. A simple vote of nationalists would not suffice. A vote against such a restoration of balance will send a message to the unionist community that cross-community protections do not really matter. I do not need to point out how corrosive that is at the moment in the Northern Ireland—the idea that cross-community does not really matter, that it matters only when certain people have decided it does.
If the Government wish to be loyal to their Command Paper and their New Decade, New Approach promise to protect the UK internal market, the way to do that is to insert these amendments and correct the monumental error in disapplying cross-community consent. Repealing Section 56A and Schedule 6A would cut out the corrosive infection which has been injected into the Belfast agreement by the protocol. It is also important to restore the primacy of the cross-community protections and to make very clear that the constitutional statue in the form of the Northern Ireland Act cannot be subjugated to the general words in Section 7A of the withdrawal Act.
Of course, those of us who went to court on this say that Section 7A has no such effect in any event, but given that the Government and their lawyers have come to the High Court and made that case, these amendments will make expressly clear the primacy of the key cross-community protections. I accept that the Minister has had very little time to study the amendments. I hope that he will not simply say that this should not be in this Bill, because if it cannot be in this Bill, then the Government are really saying that there is no way to change what has happened in respect of those consent principles.
I hope that the Minister will give this some thought and that the Government will perhaps come back with an amendment of their own, if not this amendment, on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and to speak in support of this amendment, which is also in my name, because this issue goes to the heart of the political crisis that currently afflicts Northern Ireland.
We are debating a Bill which in a way—I suppose, ironically—arises out of the previous crisis in Northern Ireland. We have had a series of such Bills over the years. Noble Lords on the Labour Front Bench will recall that when their party was in office it too brought forward from time to time various Bills concerning Northern Ireland, which not only dealt with the operation of the Assembly and the institutions but sought to legislate on things such as legacy and other issues which we are still grappling with today. That shows that many of the issues are still to be resolved and this is a work in progress. Many people who felt that, once we had the Belfast agreement of 1998 or subsequent agreements, everything was fine have been disillusioned of that by events. One of the problems has been that, instead of adhering to agreements that have been entered into, there have been efforts to undermine the principle of consent which is at the heart of the Belfast agreement as amended by the St Andrews agreement. This is what we are dealing with in this amendment.
I totally accept, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said, that the Minister has had very little time to consider this matter—that goes for other noble Lords as well—so we clearly understand that this is a matter that we will have to consider over the coming days and, no doubt, at a later stage of the Bill. However, I emphasise that it is a matter of urgency. As things stand, the protocol poses a danger to the union. The noble Baroness alluded to the court action currently under way—not just to findings in the High Court but to some of the Government’s own lawyers’ submissions, which are troubling and worrying for unionists in Northern Ireland, where they have argued that sections of the Act of Union, particularly Section 6, are suspended, in effect, by the withdrawal Act. That is an incredible position for a Conservative and Unionist Government to find themselves arguing for in the courts; it really is quite staggering. Whether it is today or another day, this issue of the protocol needs to be addressed soon. At the heart of it is the issue of democratic consent.
Earlier in the debate on other clauses we discussed the importance of the principle of consent and the assertion of its primacy, as well as issues concerning returning things to the way they were in the 1998 agreement. What was at the heart of the 1998 agreement but the principle of consent and the idea that there should be cross-community support in the Assembly for every key decision? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, alluded to, that is explicitly referred to in paragraph 5(d) of strand 1 of the Belfast agreement. We therefore have a situation, for all the reasons we know, that every key, major decision made in the Northern Ireland Assembly is either a cross-community vote or susceptible of being turned into one. That was agreed not by us but by those parties who put their hands to the Belfast agreement. In the amendments that were made in St Andrews we made some improvements to the overall structure, but that was the fundamental agreement that was made.
There is only one key vote, one important decision—probably the most important one of all—which cannot now be a cross-community vote. That is the vote in 2024 on whether the Northern Ireland protocol should continue to apply; in other words, whether all the EU laws on manufactured goods, agri-foods, VAT, state aid, and so on—those matters covered by Articles 5 to 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol—should continue to apply in Northern Ireland and to its people. Those laws were made without any final decision being susceptible of being made by anyone in the Northern Ireland Assembly or at Westminster. They were made in Brussels, not necessarily—or, rather, certainly not—in the interests of Northern Ireland. They will have been made necessarily in the interests of those who made them. I do not object to that; that is perfectly understandable. However, the fact that we are then subjected to them even if they disadvantage us is an outrageous proposition in a 21st-century, modern democracy, and it would certainly not be tolerated in Scotland, Wales or any part of England for a second. It is certainly not taking back control.
The decision in 2024 is offensive in its own right because it should already have been made—it should have been made prior to this coming into force. In 2024 that decision is then to be made by a majority vote, so it is not a cross-community vote and it cannot be turned into one. That was done in the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (Democratic Consent Process) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. One of the most significant changes to the structure of the Assembly and the principle of consent was made in subordinate legislation, in the regulations that I have just described, not by primary legislation, in an Act of Parliament, but unilaterally by the Government here in Parliament, making a fundamental change to the way in which the Northern Ireland Assembly takes decisions. Again, there was no vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly on such a matter, only one which was made here unilaterally.
The significance of that should not be underestimated. The Government’s argument was that this is not a devolved matter. Of course, the reality is that if it is not a devolved matter, there should not be a vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly at all. If it is not a devolved matter, it is a vote for Parliament. By giving the vote to the Assembly, they then decided to change the voting mechanism to ensure that one outcome would be agreed. That, on top of everything else regarding the protocol, has rightly exercised unionists of all parties, backgrounds and descriptions in Northern Ireland.
These amendments seek to restore—as we heard earlier in some of the arguments put forward regarding other amendments—what the original agreement and the 1998 Act said, and to restore the principle of consent on a cross-community basis for all key decisions. If done in a timely way, they would go some way towards alleviating the current crisis and perhaps avoiding what is coming down the road. As I said at Second Reading, it is simply unsustainable for people to expect that the institutions will just operate as normal while the east-west relationship has been trashed, which is strand 3 of the agreement, as well as strand 1 through the changes that were made to the consent principle and the mechanism regarding agreement.
I understand the difficulties today for the Minister regarding the late notice and being able to examine the amendments in detail, but I urge him to take on board the heartfelt views, the real concerns and the matters of principle that are at the heart of them.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, I think most people know that I am one of the parties, together with the noble Baroness opposite, who are pursuing these issues through the courts. Despite what has been said at first instance, I am quite confident that when we reach the end of this litigation we will be vindicated. However, that will take time.
At the same time, we hope that the Government, who have been in negotiation with the European Union for some time and I think are making some progress, will acknowledge that they have not yet made enough progress for us to be able to go back to normal life. Hopefully, this issue from 1924 or whenever it is will never arise, but if it does then the comments that the noble Lord opposite has made are very important. If, in a number of years’ time, we come to a vote on this issue where we are denied the procedures that we put in place in the Belfast agreement, that will not be acceptable. I say that very firmly and clearly.
What the Government have tried to do on this issue is not going to work. They cannot just try to slip this through and somehow hope that it will work out all right when the time comes. It was a bad mistake for them to eliminate cross-community voting on an issue that is of huge importance. In the agreement we were very conscious about making sure that all important issues would be decided by cross-community vote. To take that away from the people is not going to be acceptable. We have problems going on at the moment and I do not want to say anything to exacerbate them, but I will just say that the Government have got themselves into a hole. They should get out of that hole before it gets too big and overwhelms them.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I wish to make a few brief remarks about this issue. Those who have spoken before me—the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Trimble—have articulated the situation. I say to the Government that they need to demonstrate clearly that they have not fallen out with devolution, because their actions in recent times are getting the message over to Northern Ireland that they are rather weary of devolution or no longer believe in it.
There is a crisis coming. Those of us who sit here want to avert it if we possibly can, but the Government are the ones who can really avert it. They have created it—that has been put very straight to them by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble—and only they can ensure that this crisis does not hit us in the face. Let it be clearly said and understood here today: it is on its way. It is in the making. It is almost here.
I will not say anything more, but I urge the Government to take note in particular of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Trimble, have said. There is an issue, and if it is not sorted quickly then I believe it will go beyond sorting.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her manuscript amendments. Obviously, she referred to a number of arguments that are currently being considered by the courts and on which I have no intention of commenting today. As my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn generously pointed out, this amendment only came in this afternoon, so I hope noble Lords will forgive me that I have not had the opportunity to study it in detail or discuss it more broadly within the department.
The protocol came up extensively at Second Reading and, on that occasion, I set out the Government’s position on this issue. It is clear that in the construction and implementation of the protocol we have seen a diversion of trade, burdens on business, an impact on consumers and how it has affected confidence in the Belfast agreement and its institutions throughout the community. The irony is not lost that a protocol that was designed primarily to support and uphold the 1998 agreement now risks undermining it.
As I also pointed out at Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Frost is currently engaged in intensive negotiations with the European Commission on a number of the problems I have referred to arising from the protocol. As he has made clear to the House on a number of occasions, while progress has been made there still remain substantial gaps. The Government’s hope and intention is that these differences can be resolved through agreement; that is our clear preference. If that is not possible, then we will take whatever steps we feel are necessary to safeguard not just the interests of Northern Ireland but the United Kingdom as a whole, because the protocol impacts the whole of the UK and not just one part of it.
I assure both the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn that the Government are firmly of the view that any solution to the issues arising from the protocol can be lasting only if it has democratic support from across the community in Northern Ireland, ensuring a balanced settlement which is sustainable in the long term. As my noble friend has made clear, the current arrangements are not sustainable, and he is trying to address that issue.
Beyond that, I am not in a position to say a great deal more. At the risk of repetition, this Bill is primarily about implementing New Decade, New Approach, which was instrumental in securing the re-establishment of the devolved institutions after the hugely frustrating period from 2017 to 2020. I respectfully suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that we should press on with passing this Bill, allow my noble friend Lord Frost to press on with his negotiations and secure the right outcome for Northern Ireland. In the meantime, I urge her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Dodds, Lord Trimble and Lord Morrow. All noble Lords here should be concerned about the seriousness of the situation in Northern Ireland; it will not get better if the protocol stays. As we have said many times, in the end the Government have to choose between the Belfast agreement and the protocol. Of course, the Belfast agreement is now being fractured—I think that is the word. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that those who did not speak are in agreement or have been thinking so carefully about it all that they will come back on Report. I thank the Minister because the amendment was tabled this morning and I appreciate that he may not have seen it until later in the day. Obviously Members need to look at it, study it and think about it.
Normal dealings in Northern Ireland are not going to continue unless this is sorted. We can no longer ignore it. It is not going to go away. We are wasting our time with the New Decade, New Approach if this is not sorted. Things will get very difficult indeed. In view of what the Minister has said, I hope that he will go away and perhaps discuss the amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and other members of the Government, including the Prime Minister, and that by the time we get to Report we may have a different view and a different outcome in terms of what can be put on the Order Paper. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Coaker
“Report on implementation of The New Decade, New Approach Deal
(1) The Secretary of State must lay a report before each House of Parliament and before the Northern Ireland Assembly no later than six months after the date on which this Act is passed.(2) The report under subsection (1) must set out—(a) whether, and how, each provision of this Act has been implemented, and(b) what plans the Government has to bring forward further legislative proposals to implement the remainder of The New Decade, New Approach Deal.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Government to report on what parts of The New Decade, New Approach Deal have been achieved under this Act, and what plans the Government has to implement the remainder of the deal.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I apologise to the Committee for my late arrival. I was unavoidably detained. I will read Hansard to discover the various contributions that have been made. It was very interesting to hear the thoughtful contributions about the constitutional issues that are emerging as a result of different policy decisions.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that, notwithstanding what she has just said, I hope that she appreciates the reason I tabled this probing amendment. I know that among all the huge constitutional clashes that there are at the moment and the deep concerns arising from the protocol, some may regard an amendment which seeks to lay a report after six months to see how far New Decade, New Approach has got may not seem to be of huge political relevance, but it is important that we discuss it. That is why I tabled my probing Amendment 8. I also support Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie.
I thought that the Minister would say that much of this is beyond the scope of the Bill. Since we are talking about the implementation of New Decade, New Approach, I thought the Minister would be interested in ensuring that I spoke only to Annexe A. It is the Government’s financial and economic commitments to Northern Ireland as agreed in New Decade, New Approach, so it is the document that underpins it. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, said. He spoke about the need for education, environment and health. All that is laid out in New Decade, New Approach. The purpose of my amendment is simply to ask the Government what happens to all this? The constitutional debate goes on, but alongside that there are the very real issues that the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, raised. Other members of the Committee will know better than me and understand the concerns of the people of Northern Ireland.
The annexe sets out the areas that the UK Government’s financial commitment will cover and the conditions that would be attached. Such a report in six months would no doubt detail the financial commitments that the Government have made to Northern Ireland in order to meet everything that is laid out in New Decade, New Approach. I will be interested if the Minister can lay out the financial package that has been made available to Northern Ireland and the additional money made available to ensure the delivery of New Decade, New Approach.
For example, it talks about
“Providing the Executive with additional support for 2020/21, and addressing the health crisis”
and
“Providing additional funding for the Executive in 2020/21 … to place Northern Ireland’s finances on a sustainable footing, and address its priorities, such as delivering parity with England and Wales for nurses’ pay”.
It would be interesting to know whether that is actually happening, is a government aspiration or is just on the back burner.
Under “transforming public services”, as well as health, it talks about
“a better and more efficient education system”
and
“Ensuring faster, fairer justice”.
Under “turbocharging infrastructure”, there is
“Essential sewage … ‘Better Connecting Dublin and Belfast’ strategy … A5/A6 roads”,
et cetera. These may be regarded as devolved matters, but what is the financial commitment from the UK Government to allow the devolved institutions to deliver them? I am not trying to impact on the decision-makers; I am simply laying out what the Government have said are important for them to support to enable the devolved institution—the Northern Ireland Assembly or whoever controls it—to deliver these things for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland.
New Decade, New Approach talks about implementing the Stormont House agreement. For the benefit of time, we will move over that and assume it has gone or will at least be a debate for another day on legacy issues. That has been replaced.
It goes on to talk about
“Addressing Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances”.
I am sorry to take up this time, if the Committee does not mind. It is Committee and it allows this level of detail. This is particularly important, as the document was signed by all the major parties. I accept the point made by the Ulster Unionists that they received it late, but it was generally supported by all five major parties of Northern Ireland and accepted as a way of restoring the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is massive. To be fair to the Secretary of State, it was an achievement on his part, as it was for the five parties and the Irish Government.
We have all these different things, such as
“Additional funding to support mental health”.
The people of Northern Ireland will be interested in
“Additional funding for tackling paramilitarism”.
I read that there is a commitment to fund 7,500 police. Does the Minister know how many police officers there are in Northern Ireland? The latest number I could find was 6,900, so they are 600 short. Are the Government committed to funding that 600? That is in the financial commitment. The people of Northern Ireland would be interested to know whether the 600 will be funded to provide the additional police laid out in New Decade, New Approach.
It mentions
“A Culture and Community fund”
and
“Funding to support … the 2021 centenary and related projects”.
I accept that the pandemic has made some of this difficult. Again, I know that “languages and broadcasting” are difficult, but again it is laid out here. There is support for all that. They are huge spending commitments that the UK Government have made to the people of Northern Ireland. As laid out in my amendment, there should be a report to this Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the people of Northern Ireland to explain what has happened to this. Whether that is in three months, six months, a year or 18 months is irrelevant. What has happened to these commitments? It is no wonder people find themselves a little despairing or unsure of reality sometimes. What does this mean? Is it worth the paper it is written on? Of course it is, but how is it being delivered, what is going to happen and when?
Then it talks about the
“Conditions of the UK Government Financial Commitments in Support of a Restored Northern Ireland Executive”
and an “independent Fiscal Council”. People will tell me whether we have that or not, but I am interested.
“There will be regular (quarterly) reviews of UK Government funding provided under this agreement, and implementation of all agreements via a UK Government-NI Executive Joint Board.”
The Minister will tell me that that has been set up and has met quarterly. It will be interesting if it has, but perhaps the Minister will confirm whether that is going to meet, has met or is just something written on the paper.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I will speak extremely briefly on Amendment 9, which is tabled in my name and signed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Smith of Basildon. The purpose behind this amendment is really quite straightforward: it is to speed up the implementation of this Bill. It is now two years since New Decade, New Approach was signed, and yet we face growing political tensions ahead of the Assembly elections next year and threats from the DUP to withdraw its Ministers from the Executive as a result of tensions over the Northern Ireland protocol, as illustrated all too clearly in the earlier debate. This Bill would go some way towards managing such a crisis, were that to happen, yet we could potentially find ourselves in a situation where the Bill had been passed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords but, because of the two-month commencement period, the Act could not be deployed in order to help with such a potential crisis.
The Minister indicated at Second Reading that
“if the political situation changes dramatically, that is something that the Government will be prepared to look at during the passage of the Bill”.—[Official Report, 29/11/21; col. 1258.]
Can the Minister repeat that reassurance today? Surely avoiding a political vacuum at such a critical time is in everyone’s best interests. I also look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the very important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, not least on the meeting of the board and whether that has happened.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I rise as a signatory to both amendments and to speak in support of them. To deal with Amendment 8, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has gone through the New Decade, New Approach agreement with a fine-toothed comb and highlighted all the various commitments and undertakings that were made back in January 2020 by two Governments and the parties to a greater or lesser degree.
In many ways, New Decade, New Approach could be characterised as a highly aspirational document. It contains lots of commitments but, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, where are the funding commitments to match and deliver those undertakings? For delivery, you need the money. While it could be provided out of the block grant, there are some elements that can be provided only directly from the Exchequer here in London.
However, proposed new subsection (2)(b) in Amendment 8 deals with
“what plans the Government has to bring forward further legislative proposals to implement the remainder of The New Decade, New Approach Deal.”
I look at what has not been addressed or fulfilled yet and, by and large, I would say that some of that is perhaps down to differences within the Executive Office between the First and Deputy First Ministers, as well as to the concentration of work on Covid, and now, obviously, we have the new variant.
There is a need for a bill of rights. We have been talking about it since 1998. Loads of meetings have been held in the Assembly on the bill of rights, we are still no further forward. We are told that the Northern Ireland Assembly Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights has received 45 briefings from experts since September 2020, and it recently held a public call for evidence which attracted 2,400 responses. The committee is due to report in February 2022. There is a panel of experts who are intended to assist the committee, but who have yet to be appointed. When will that happen? Promises were made about an age, goods, facilities and services Bill to prevent discrimination against people because of their age. Perhaps some of us might fall into that category at some stage, or perhaps we are already do.
Then there are the more fundamental issues: rights, language and identity proposals. Although that is within the remit of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, I do not see a lot of movement there. Can the Minister indicate whether the Government here at Westminster intend to legislate for them? I have already referred to the civic advisory panel, upon which there has been no significant movement. It was to be established within six months, which should have been June 2020, and we still have not heard about it. On the programme for government, New Decade, New Approach says:
“There will be a multi-year Programme for Government, underpinned by a multi-year budget and legislative programme.”
The public consultation on the draft programme for government outcomes framework closed on 22 March this year, some 14 months after New Decade, New Approach. A total of 416 responses were provided to the main consultation on the equality impact assessment and, in addition, there were 23 responses to an associated children and young people’s consultation. The feedback received demonstrates that there remains strong support for the outcomes-based approach and for the draft outcomes as consulted upon. The Executive hopes to be in a position to have a final revised version of the outcomes framework as soon as possible. That begs the question of whether the Northern Ireland Executive are currently working according to a programme for government or what are they working towards and how do they get or achieve that collective responsibility?
The amendment in my name and the names of my noble friends Lord Coaker and Lady Smith is timely. It seeks to ensure that the commitments that were to be undertaken by the UK Government and by the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly should be brought forward in an expeditious way for the benefit of all the community of Northern Ireland, properly costed, with a column indicating how much money, where it is coming from and when it will be spent.
On Amendment 9, in my name and the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, it is vital that we have commencement with Royal Assent. New Decade, New Approach is now 23 months old, and it is important that some fundamental issues in the Bill to do with the appointment of Ministers, elections and petitions of concern are put in place immediately.
For too long we have seen the misuse of the petition of concern. It was never meant to be a petition of veto but a petition that helped minorities and which understood and appreciated the issues they raised. It was not meant to be a petition of objection but was to be used as a special proofing procedure during which a special Assembly committee would hear specifically from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. It was meant to be equality and human rights focused, and to be used as a proofing procedure to ensure that rights were upheld. It was never there to prevent rights being legislated for.
In that regard, it is important that the Government look kindly and benignly on both Amendments 8 and 9 —I urge the Minister to do this—and provide indications of acceptance in relation to them. That would allow the timely implementation of this Act to coincide with the end of the current Assembly in March, with Assembly elections on 5 or 6 May.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the Minister; I hope that will not happen on too many occasions. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I thank the noble Lord for moving this amendment, raising the issues that he has and exploring with the Government the commitments entered into by the UK Government in Annex A of New Decade, New Approach. He is right to do so and we are grateful to him. The noble Baroness has highlighted a number of areas of interest that are worth exploring today in Grand Committee for the Minister to respond to.
I want to take the opportunity, in this discussion of Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to add a few words about some of the commitments that the Government have entered into. There were quite a number of commitments. Certainly, during the negotiations our party was very keen that the Government would commit to a range of actions, funding and other objectives. It was not just a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly parties; the Government have a big role to play in making that Assembly work well and providing it with the necessary resources to make that happen.
I want to highlight briefly a couple of matters. I know the Minister will not be able to give detailed answers on all of them but perhaps he can take them away and if necessary write to us or explore further how he thinks things can proceed. I am interested in the section on financial and economic commitments to Northern Ireland. Under the heading “Turbocharging infrastructure”, the Government commit to helping to turbocharge infrastructure in Northern Ireland and set out a number of capital projects, such as “Essential sewage investment” and “The ‘Better Connecting Dublin and Belfast’ Strategy”. One of those mentioned is the York Street interchange, yet we have had very disturbing news in recent days that that interchange may not now be proceeding. I am not au fait with all the details but that is a key, major improvement that would greatly benefit connectivity in Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland’s economy. It was one of the things that we discussed as part of the confidence and supply agreement, which the Minister was very much part of helping to get settled. It was very much seen as a major driver in terms of infrastructure investment.
For those noble Lords who have not had the pleasure of visiting Northern Ireland and travelling along the west link—I put “pleasure” in inverted commas, particularly at certain times of the day—unfortunately, despite this major project designed to alleviate congestion, it has become one of the most congested roads in the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, according to reports Belfast is now the third most congested city in the entire United Kingdom in terms of traffic. So, we need to get up to speed—literally—on these issues. The problem is that we have a major link designed to link the M1 to the M3 and M2, but when it was being designed some bright spark came up with the idea of putting a set of traffic lights at the end of it. As a result, the whole purpose of the link has been under-mined.
Lord Lexden (Con)
I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, with whom I find myself in agreement on a range of issues and not only those relating to Northern Ireland. He has brought forward an extremely important amendment in the interests of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In this Parliament, we need to know how the long list of commitments that the noble Lord outlined and that have been entered into by the Government are progressing. This is vital information for securing the proper working of the partnership between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There has been much talk of partnership within Northern Ireland, but the union is itself a great partnership and this Parliament needs to be kept properly informed about its progress.
I noted one point about the commitments when they were first brought forward at the beginning of 2020, which was the establishment of a joint UK/Northern Ireland board, to which reference has already been made. Oral Questions that I put down a little while ago revealed that the board had come into existence and had had a first meeting. Its continued meetings are vital to ensuring the success of what has been agreed. My noble friend kindly made reference to me earlier, saying that I had given him a helping hand some 30 years ago—a helping hand that I do not regret in any way—but I hope that, in replying, he might be able to say a little more about this board, which clearly occupies a central position in the matters that we have been discussing under this amendment.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for these amendments. If I may, I will on this occasion take them in reverse order.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, the Bill follows the standard practice of allowing two months before provisions come into effect following Royal Assent. However, I have listened to the arguments and I am very happy to repeat the assurance I gave the noble Baroness at Second Reading that we will go away and return to this matter on Report. She has my assurance on that point.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. He raised a number of important points about the implementation of the agreement. He reeled off, if I may say, quite a long list from Annex A—
Lord Caine (Con)
No, not all of it, but I hope he will forgive me if I do not reply in detail to each and every point. I will look at Hansard and write to him on any that I have missed.
The noble Lord was particularly focused on a number of the financial commitments. I can tell him that, thus far, the Government have allocated over £700 million of the £2 billion funding in New Decade, New Approach, which had the impact of ending the nurses’ pay dispute he referred to in his comments. As I mentioned at Second Reading, we have already contributed towards the creation of the Northern Ireland graduate-entry medical school in Londonderry and supplemented the new deal for Northern Ireland with £400 million to promote Northern Ireland as a cybersecurity hub. The noble Lord referred to the fiscal council, which has been established. It was originally a commitment in the fresh start agreement, which was repeated in New Decade, New Approach. That has been established.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Could I invite my noble friend to tell us a little about the fiscal council, how it is composed and the work it is going to do?
Lord Caine (Con)
My understanding is that the council is chaired by Robert Chote who, my noble friend will recall, ran the Office for Budget Responsibility. It is a similar body, and will comment on the Executive’s budget and spending plans. One benefit of the financial settlement that was set out in the spending review is that—this is currently being negotiated—Northern Ireland is able to get away from the in-year or single-year spending reviews that have been particularly frustrating in recent years. It can now move to a proper, three-year spending review that will provide greater financial stability and certainty. That was welcomed by the fiscal council in a report I looked at, which was published only a couple of weeks ago. This is an important development that will improve not just financial stability but scrutiny of the Executive’s spending plans.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, also referred to the joint board. I am advised that it has now met on three occasions, and the Government are committed to maintaining that forum as a means for the UK Government and the Executive to discuss the implementation of many of the commitments in New Decade, New Approach. I hope that reassures my noble friend on both the fiscal council and the joint board, as this work is ongoing and will continue.
I mentioned the spending review. As I said at Second Reading, the settlement in the spending review is the most generous that Northern Ireland, or any of the devolved Administrations, have received since devolution was established in 1998-99.
There are a great many other commitments. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, mentioned the centenary fund, which has benefited from £1 million of UK Government money. There is a host of other non-financial commitments that have not required legislation, some of which I referred to at Second Reading, such as the appointment of the veterans’ commissioner and regulations to bring the flying of the union flag into line with those of the rest of the United Kingdom. They came into force in December 2020 and are a development that I am sure many noble Lords welcome. We have introduced legislation to further enshrine the Armed Forces covenant in law and appointed an advisory committee for the establishment of a Castlereagh foundation, the case for which DUP and UUP Members have long pressed. We have provided £50 million to support low-carbon transport in Northern Ireland, enabling the Infrastructure Minister to announce a new fleet of 145 low-carbon buses for Belfast and the north-west.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am very grateful for the Minister’s response, particularly the last sentence or two. I think all noble Lords in the Committee today will be pleased with the response from the Minister and his commitment to do that; it would be very helpful and I thank him sincerely. The whole purpose of the amendment was clearly not to divide the House.
I am not as well versed as I used to be in issues with regard to Northern Ireland, Ireland, British-Irish relations and some of the broader issues, but I suspect—in fact I took a straw poll of the people around me—that much of what the Minister was saying was news to people, frankly, and a lot of it is really good news. As I keep saying, the constitutional debates will happen and are difficult, but some of the other matters are not as difficult. I was quite inspired by the New Decade, New Approach agreement, which, as I say, many people in this Room will have been privy to negotiating. It is an inspirational document, balancing all the different competing claims and narratives.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but finish with this point. I noted that the Minister said that, so far, £700 million had been spent on the commitments in New Decade, New Approach and that £2 billion was the total commitment.
Baroness Hoey
“(c) section 56A of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and Schedule 6A to that Act.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This repeals the Protocol consent mechanisms which were made by regulation by the NI Secretary of State. These consent mechanisms expressly transport the Protocol into domestic law by ensuring the consent of the NI Assembly for its continuation requires only a majority vote (and expressly disapplies cross community consent protections of section 42 of the 1998 Act), rather than cross community consent protections applying pursuant to Strand One (5)(d) of the Belfast Agreement.
The Protocol requires (at least in respect Articles 5-10) that positive consent be given for its onward existence.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
If I may, I enjoyed the debate earlier, but the convention is that you do not move it formally in Committee.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have in front of me, from the Public Bill Office, “If you wish to move your second amendment, you say, ‘My Lords, I beg to move manuscript Amendment 8A, standing in my name, which is as follows’, and read it out. You then make your speech.”
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
I think that was put down just in case something odd happened. The convention for right now is not to move it.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I am sorry; I am new. I do not know the conventions. Shall I go on to move it?
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
I do not think you want to move it. It was spoken to earlier.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
I know, but it was grouped with Amendment 7A and was spoken to there.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
That is fine, because it is very short and was simply going to repeal the Act, which would mean that we would not have the protocol consent principles.
House of Lords
Drax Wood Pellets
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Boycott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the sustainability, and (2) the impact on biodiversity, of the wood pellets used by Drax for electricity generation in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, in 2020 plant-based biomass power generation made up approximately 9% of the total renewable electricity generation in the UK; this includes generation from wood pellets. The biomass that powers such generation meets strict sustainability criteria that the Government set out in legislation. The sustainability criteria include requirements for sustainable sourcing, covering a range of social, economic and environmental issues, including protecting biodiversity. The UK supports only biomass that complies with these strict sustainability criteria.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I thank the Minister for his Answer, but I beg to differ. Some of the forests being logged for biomass are among the most ecologically rich and diverse in the world. The North American coastal plain, where most UK biomass imports—particularly Drax—come from, is a global biodiversity hot spot. Clear-cutting for biomass is occurring even in reserves that are designated protected forests. We are paying Drax £832 million a year in subsidies, and at the moment it is the fifth most polluting power station in Europe. I again ask the Minister my Question on the Order Paper. The impact on biodiversity, rather than non-existent as he said, is in fact very severe. When will the Government step up to the plate and do something about this?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am afraid that I and the noble Baroness will have to disagree on this. Biodiversity is one of the criteria we take into account. We have sent officials out to southern USA, where most of this biomass comes from. This is residue, by-product from the forestry process, so it is not unsustainable. I think the noble Baroness is wrong.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Would it not be more sustainable if my noble friend could source all the wood from fast-growing wood coppice or miscanthus from farmers in North Yorkshire and across Yorkshire? It is closer to Drax and would reduce the carbon footprint, as well as helping local farmers with their growing capacity.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Indeed it would, and we already source some small quantities from the UK, but the noble Baroness needs to look at the size of the forests in southern USA, which are, I think I am right in saying, about the size of the landmass of western Europe. Great and sustainable though North Yorkshire wood is, I suspect we would struggle to meet the quantity required.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
Drax claims that burning wood pellets is carbon-neutral because trees absorb as much carbon dioxide when they grow as they emit when they are burned. Is the Minister able to justify that claim from a thorough analysis that includes all supply-chain emissions and with effective CCUS? Would that also have to include hydrogen production?
Lord Callanan (Con)
No. In a sustainably managed forest, which all our biomass comes from, there will be stands of trees of different ages, which will be harvested in gradual sequence and then replaced as they reach maturity. The market price for biomass is far lower than it is for timber and board manufacture, which are far more valuable. These are by-products from the forestry process.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, part of the problem of how we got here is that the Government took at face value the assurances from biomass energy producers that their products were sustainable. Will the Government now commit to implementing a due diligence exercise in future, so that producers have to prove where they have sourced their product from?
Lord Callanan (Con)
They already say where their product has come from; this evidence is independently audited. Generators must report against the criteria on a monthly basis and Ofgem performs checks to ensure that the criteria are met and deductions in certificate issuance or payments are applied proportionately for the energy produced. We are already doing the checks that the noble Baroness suggests.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I declare my conservation interest as in the register. Will my noble friend the Minister be able to put in the public domain these independent assessments of biodiversity loss—or no loss, as he has it? As far as I am concerned, and from what I hear, this is having a severe impact on biodiversity and, in primary forest that has been cut down, on species such as the cerulean warbler, the prothonotary warbler and many others. Is he aware that some of the most deprived communities in the areas of these wood-processing plants are suffering great health problems? Is it right that the Government are subsidising this?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Where the evidence is published, I will certainly make sure that the noble Lord receives a copy of it, but I think he is wrong on this. As I said, these are not primary trees but trees that are being harvested anyway; these are branches and other offcuts from the forestry process. It is sustainably managed and the criteria are checked, including for biodiversity.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Do the Government understand that Drax has been taken to court twice this year for air pollution offences and reported to the OECD for misleading and, frankly, untrue statements about its environmental impacts? Does the Minister think the Government are being a bit naive in not doing due diligence with somebody who actually knows what they are talking about from the green point of view?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I would challenge the noble Baroness’s statement that some of the green groups know what they are talking about, but we make sure that the process is independently audited and all of the biomass is—I repeat—sustainably produced.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, in relation to transforming the UK’s most carbon-intensive industrial cluster into the world’s first carbon-neutral industrial cluster by 2040, can the Minister tell us not only about safeguarding existing jobs but how many new green skilled jobs this is predicted to bring to my area of Yorkshire and the Humber?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am afraid the noble Baroness will have to write to me with details of which scheme she is referring to.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister think there might be merit in closing Drax and building a new nuclear power station?
Lord Callanan (Con)
There will certainly be merit in producing new nuclear power stations. I share the noble Lord’s enthusiasm for nuclear power. It was a shame that the Labour Government of which he was a part stopped building nuclear power stations; that was a retrograde step. We are committed to future nuclear, but we can do that alongside sustainable biofuels.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the burning of woody biomass produces more carbon emissions per unit of final energy than burning coal. The Drax power station is not decarbonising the energy sector—quite the opposite—and is the UK’s largest single source of carbon emissions. The wood pellets burned by Drax come from whole trees clear-cut logged in natural forests worldwide, not from trees grown for the purpose or from waste by-products as the Minister said. Is it time the Government thought again about the £2.1 million daily subsidy that Drax receives?
Lord Callanan (Con)
At the risk of repeating myself, I think that the noble Baroness is wrong on the points that she makes. The process is independently audited and checked, and we have sent officials out to southern USA to ascertain that the claims are correct, and all the material burned in Drax is sustainably produced.
Lord Geddes (Con)
Since the noble Lord, Lord West, has led us slightly wider on the Question, can I ask why there is not more emphasis on tidal power?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord gives me a great cue to talk about the contracts for difference scheme that we launched just this morning, which for the first time allows tidal power to bid. I completely agree with the noble Lord, and we are doing it.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
The Minister mentioned the contracts for difference, which include onshore wind. As he knows from the Bill that we discussed two Fridays ago, there are still planning issues with onshore wind development, particularly with replacement of current onshore wind. Will the Government look a little more sympathetically at supporting my Bill?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We had an extensive and informative discussion with the noble Baroness on her Bill, and onshore wind, as I reminded her at the time, is included in the contracts for difference round that we launched this morning.
Medical Schools: Training Places
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Robathan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many training places for new doctors there were in medical schools and other institutions in (1) 2000–01, and (2) 2021–22; and what plans they have, if any, to increase the number of places for 2022–23.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
In the 2000-01 academic year in England, there were 4,300 government-funded medical school places. Initial data shows that, in 2021-22, 8,460 places have been taken up, including additional places for students who completed A-levels in 2021 and had an offer from a university in England to study medicine subject to their grades. The Government continue to monitor the number of medical school places that they fund to ensure that it is in line with NHS workforce requirements.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, the Answer is quite encouraging, but doctors and other medical staff are working flat out on our behalf, and we are told that there are not enough doctors. That is because we are not training enough. Some 21 years ago, Gordon Brown confected a row over a girl called Laura Spence, who was well qualified but was not able to get into Oxford to read medicine because there were not enough training places. We have had all three major parties in government in those 21 years, and there are still not enough training places. Rather than taking doctors from the poorest countries in the world, where they are needed, and bringing them here, does not my noble friend think that it is time to make sure that we train enough doctors in this country and that there are enough training places for them so we can actually service our own needs?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the question, but there are record numbers of medical students in training. There are currently more than 35,000 doctors in undergraduate training and 60,000 doctors in foundation and speciality postgraduate medical training. On the international market, we follow strict ethical guidelines, in line with the World Health Organization guidelines.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that the extra doctors that we were promised by 2016 will not be enough to compensate for the number of doctors who will retire? Can the Minister say something about what he is doing about the number of doctors who are going to retire shortly, which will cause even more of a shortage?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord raises an important question, but the fact is that we are training more doctors, and we are recruiting internationally where it is ethical to do so. On retirements, we are looking at a scheme that lasts until 2024 to allow doctors to come back without it affecting their pension.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I should declare that I am a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians. Do the Government accept the report from that body, Double or Quits, which has shown that we need 15,000 medical school places annually? Doubling the number of medical school places to that number would cost £1.85 billion, which is only one-third of what hospitals currently spend on agency and bank staff. Therefore, an increase is an investment to save.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question and for the advice and expertise that she has passed on to me in my short time in this place. As part of the expansion, we have opened five new medical schools across England, in Sunderland, Lancashire, Chelmsford, Lincoln and Canterbury. Sometimes we have the training, but it is difficult to find doctors in certain locations. We have tried to move training as close to those locations as possible.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, as well as increasing the numbers, is it not equally important that we ensure that every newly qualified doctor, on whom we spend well over £200,000, signs up for at least four years in the NHS, as do every male and female who joins our Armed Forces today?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that suggestion. I will look into it and get back to him.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister indicate what research has been carried out into the training opportunities for specialist doctors post-graduation who wish to pursue careers as consultant orthopaedic surgeons? At the moment, because of Covid investment resources, there are no training opportunities for them in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister raise this issue and indicate what efforts will be made to address it?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for sharing the experience of Northern Ireland. It is really important that we ensure that we have more training places and that we address the types of training that we do. As the noble Baroness will be aware, it is no longer a simple question of nurses and doctors: we are training a number of physicians’ assistants and specialists, and we will continue to do so.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, this latest Covid omicron variant has made us realise that we are one human race, and we are now facing a scandal whereby we are relying on bringing in doctors from some of the poorest parts of the world to look after our needs. For centuries, this country was renowned for sending doctors and nurses abroad and founding hospitals in all parts of the world. What consideration have Her Majesty’s Government given to ensuring not only that we are producing enough of our own doctors but that we are expanding our tertiary education and bringing in more people to send them back to help some of these countries as part of our global Britain initiative?
Lord Kamall (Con)
When training doctors from abroad, we follow international guidelines and World Health Organization ethical guidelines. For example, when I recently had a meeting with the Kenyan ministry to talk about the UK-Kenya health partnership, the point was made to me that they were training far more people than they had places for in their own country. They thought that their talent was a valuable export, while at the same time, remittances went back to their country.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests. Does the Minister accept that long-term workforce planning requires an effective apparatus that is able to understand the changing population demographic, changes in the nature of the delivery of healthcare and how technology and innovation might impact that? Do Her Majesty’s Government have a view about establishing such an apparatus as part of the current Health and Care Bill before your Lordships’ House?
Lord Kamall (Con)
There has rightly been much discussion of workforce planning for the NHS and adult social care, and the Bill will build on this. Clause 35 will bring greater clarity and accountability in this area, requiring the Secretary of State and the NHS to produce a workforce plan.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, with the intensification of the Covid booster programme, more doctors will, of course, be diverted from their usual roles, making it even harder for people to get an appointment at their local surgery, and record waiting lists will continue to increase. What revisions will the Minister make to existing plans for numbers of training places to meet the need for more trained staff, including doctors, nurses, lab technicians and auxiliaries? How will the Minister respond to the report from the Royal College of Surgeons that 13,000 planned operations have been cancelled in the last two months alone?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The focus and priority for the next three weeks is on omicron and making sure that people get their boosters as quickly as possible. It is not only doctors who are involved: nurses, pharmacists and, incredibly, a number of civil servants are now taking part in that programme. For the next three weeks, the focus is on getting more jabs into arms.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, successive Governments have poached doctors from comparatively poor countries to meet the shortages here. As the Minister knows, it costs a vast amount of money to educate and train a doctor, so developing countries have been deprived of their talents. Will the Minister explain that, or give an undertaking that the Government will provide compensation to poorer countries for stealing their assets?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Government follow strict ethical guidelines on international recruitment, in line with WHO guidance, which says we should not be taking nurses and doctors from countries and depriving their health services. But where countries have a surplus—a number of developing countries around the world actually train more people than they have a use for in the local system—they see it as a valuable source of income.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, it is not just a question of the total number of doctors but the number in certain specialisms where there is already a dearth of professionals. What are the Government doing to ensure that, as more doctors come on, they are particularly geared to specialisms where there is already a dire dearth of doctors?
Lord Kamall (Con)
When it comes to workforce plans, particularly in local areas where there is understaffing, we are very much focused on specialisms that are understaffed.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, we are losing doctors more rapidly than we can train them, and it has been like that for a while. The average age at which a physician retires is now 58; it used to be 62. What are the Government doing to help doctors stay in post and to bring them back part-time after retirement to help the NHS?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As the noble Lord will be aware, there is a temporary measure to bring doctors back, without affecting their pensions, which lasts until 2024. We are looking into whether that should be continued, as well as increasing the number of training places.
Nepal
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards their commitments to providing (1) health services, (2) water and sanitation, and (3) access to justice, for marginalised communities in Nepal, including Dalits and Adivasis.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the UK targets our development support at the most marginalised communities in Nepal, including Dalits, Adivasis, Janajatis and people with disabilities. The United Kingdom provides significant support to the Ministry of Health to strengthen systems and ensure universal health coverage, particularly for the most vulnerable. We provide £45.5 million in targeted security and justice assistance, and in 2021 we also repurposed our support to ensure that water, sanitation and health facilities reached 400,000 people, prioritising the most vulnerable in light of Covid.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for his reply. The Dalits and Adivasis comprise about 14% of the population of Nepal, and they suffer the same kind of extensive humiliations as they do anywhere. In theory, the constitution acknowledges the rights of Dalits, but nobody has yet been appointed to the National Dalit Commission that was set up, and although a National Human Rights Commission has been set up, there are no representatives from the Dalit communities. Will he please press the Government on these issues?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble and right reverend Lord’s work in his role as chair of the APPG for Dalits. I think there are some encouraging signs from Nepal. He will be aware that in 2017, when local elections took place, about 22% of those elected to official local government positions were from the Dalit communities, so there is some progress. But he makes a very valid point and of course we will continue to lobby on strengthening human rights, not just for the Dalit communities but for all vulnerable communities in Nepal.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as Colonel Commandant of the Brigade of Gurkhas. I am very grateful to my noble friend for the 100% renewal of the WASH programme delivered by the Gurkha Welfare Trust, as I am for the donation of ventilators, other medical supplies and some vaccines by COVAX. When will we fulfil our duty of care to the 30,000 Gurkha veterans who live in Nepal, through a bilateral donation of vaccines to Nepal to enable them to be vaccinated as well?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to my noble friend’s work and, indeed, that of others in your Lordships’ House who drew specific attention to the plight of Nepal during the crisis in the summer. I assure my noble friend that we continue to prioritise help through the COVAX Facility for Covid. Also, the UK recently made a bilateral donation of 131,000 doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, Helen Grant, the Prime Minister’s special envoy on girls’ education, visited Nepal in October, and she met activist women and girls on education and climate change. Did that include representatives of the Dalit community, and did she use that opportunity to press the Government of Nepal to ensure that we leave no one behind and that everyone is included in dialogue on the future?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the specifics of my honourable friend’s meeting, I will certainly make sure that that was included and write to the noble Lord. On the more general point, in all our engagement—including on the importance of girls’ education and preventing gender-based violence—all communities, including the most marginalised, are of course included.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I urge the Minister to return to the question asked by my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth, specifically about the two bodies which have been established—the National Human Rights Commission and the National Dalit Commission—on which there are no Dalits. Will he undertake to raise that specifically with the Nepalese Government and to ascertain why these constitutional promises have not been met? On the issue of Covid, what percentage of the 14% who are Dalits or Adivasis in Nepal have been vaccinated? What do we know about the number of fatalities that have occurred in line with the rest of the population? Is it not time that untouchability and caste were made history in the 21st century?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I have already made clear, I will follow up on the noble and right reverend Lord’s earlier point, specifically on representation. But I sought to illustrate that we are seeing some positive examples of inclusivity, albeit at a local level thus far. On the issue of the Covid-19 response, I can confirm that 24% of our support targeted particular vulnerable groups, including Dalits, Janajatis, Madhesi and Muslim minorities in Nepal.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware of the SAHAJ programme—Strengthening Access to Holistic Gender Responsive and Accountable Justice; it is delivered by Voluntary Service Overseas in Nepal as part of the UK aid programme and has worked very successfully with hundreds of thousands of men and women and girls and boys. Many of those, particularly the women and girls, are from the Dalit community. Programmes such as this are in jeopardy if the Government do not sort out their UK aid funding. VSO found out about its funding after the last programme had ended. It needs to know that the money will be continued, and it needs to know in time so that it can work with its partners effectively in Nepal.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that I am engaging directly with VSO on the priorities. I value it, and I am sure that all noble Lords acknowledge its valuable work. On the specifics of the programme in Nepal, I assure the noble Baroness, both as Minister for South Asia as well as Minister for civil society organisations, that I will look at that very closely.
Covid-19: PCR and Lateral Flow Test Providers
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what due diligence they carry out on companies listed on GOV.UK, that offer travel PCR and lateral flow tests for COVID-19.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
The private sector has stepped up extremely rapidly, and most of the tens of thousands of travellers have had an excellent and professional service. However, we do not tolerate any providers taking advantage of customers. All providers in the PCR international travel market are required to meet robust minimum standards, and we remove those we identify as having fallen short of them. Since we launched the travel service, we have removed over 100 providers.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, for many people that is just not their lived experience. The approved supply list for the two-day PCR test on GOV.UK is fundamentally flawed. Many thousands of people either do not receive the test results within the two-day timeline or at all. Despite many people reporting these companies to NHS Test and Trace, they remain on the list as of today, making tens of thousands of pounds while undermining the public health effort. What will the Minister do to ensure that this kind of procedure stops?
Lord Kamall (Con)
It is important to distinguish between PCR tests if you are contacted by NHS Test and Trace and PCR tests for travel purposes. If you are contacted by test and trace, you are sent a PCR test for free. But when it comes to travel, the view is that the traveller should bear that cost rather than the taxpayer. After I saw this Question, I went on to one of these websites and tested it out for myself. As the noble Lord says, the price quoted is often not the first price. I have had a conversation with those that provide it, and they are looking at a number of different solutions.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, why can vaccines only be obtained through the National Health Service, while Covid tests valid for travelling can only be obtained privately?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am not sure I completely agree with the premise of my noble friend’s question, but I will double-check. The decision had to be made that if people are contacted by test and trace, it is only right that they are sent a PCR test. But if they are travelling, should the taxpayer bear the burden of the cost of their PCR test, or should they? A number of travel companies are now recommending PCR tests for their passengers.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is not just Matt Hancock and Randox, or Rupert Soames at Serco: a large number of these companies that have multimillion—even multibillion—pound contracts for testing have links with Tory members, MPs and Peers. Is this just a coincidence? Is it serendipity? Or is it something more sinister?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I suggest that if the noble Lord would like to take a PCR test before he travels, he goes through a number of price comparison websites and chooses the one he feels is more suitable for him.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, there are rumours circulating—more than rumours, I think—that we are running out of testing kits. Is that true? Can my noble friend give us some reassurance on that front?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for bringing that to my attention. I was in a meeting with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care as well as other Ministers today. We were told categorically that we have ordered many more tests to enable people to test more often.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, there are hundreds of private test companies to choose from when you are heading abroad, and that is part of the problem. Which? carried out some mystery shopping in the autumn and revealed a list of companies that give the most reliable and best-value tests—I share that information with the House—and also the ones to avoid as being rip-offs and unreliable. Is the Minister aware of this consumer research? What notice will the Government be taking of the ones that Which? recommends not to use? Have they yet been removed from the Government’s list?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for making noble Lords aware of that particular comparison website—let me put it that way. We try carefully not to recommend particular private providers or comparison websites, but this market is developing, and there are lots of comparison websites out there looking at this market. As we start to have more testing and do more diagnoses at home, this market will develop.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I was one of the first people in the country to call for lateral flow tests, going back to August last year, and I am delighted that the Government now provide these free to businesses and the public. Can the Minister assure us that these tests will continue to be made available free as we continue to fight this pandemic? Secondly, as president of the CBI, let me say that the aviation sector is suffering hugely. Is there a need for pre-departure PCR tests when we could use lateral flow tests?
Lord Kamall (Con)
Let me assure the noble Lord that there will be sufficient tests; and if you are contacted by test and trace, you will either be asked to take a lateral flow test or be sent a PCR test. But when it comes to international travel, we feel it is only right that the traveller or the company bears the cost. At the moment, travel companies are offering and recommending specific PCR tests.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, wishes to speak virtually. I think this is a convenient point for me to call her.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has just had trouble responding to the Question from noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the process used to review performance of the Government-approved travel PCR testing companies. Can I give him a specific example? TestnGo has a 76% “poor” rating on Trustpilot, with thousands of people not receiving their PCR tests and others not getting the results in two days. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has said, many have reported this to test and trace, so why is it still on the Government’s list of approved suppliers?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for suggesting another price comparison website. There is an accreditation scheme, and every time companies are reported to the Government, we look at how to remove them. There is a four-stage process for UKAS accreditation, and sometimes when companies are reported, another one pops up.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister say what the average cost to the NHS of both a PCR and a lateral flow test is, so that that can inform people in relation to the cost in the private sector?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I do not have the exact numbers, so I will write to the noble Baroness. On loss-leading services, anything under £15 was removed because it was deemed that that was dishonest or underpriced.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Following on from that question, I remind my noble friend that, as far as I am aware, all the PCR tests are endorsed by Her Majesty’s Government, but the price varies from £60 to over £120. In that condition, if they are endorsed, will my noble friend talk to the companies concerned and decide on a recommended price level?
Lord Kamall (Con)
When I was discussing this with the people responsible for accreditation, they said that often a number of companies are reported to them and they look into them. Quite often companies will then be removed, but they can come back. The issue is that companies sometimes get provisional approval at the first stage while they are going through the full approval process. That will be reviewed in time.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, in answering the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, the Minister referred to the fact that 100 companies had been removed from the list, presumably by his department or NHS Test and Trace. He presumably monitors all of this, so could he tell us exactly how many complaints there have been and how many of such complaints are necessary before a company is removed?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord; I do not personally monitor this, but I will get the figures and write to him.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister explain the wide difference in price from these companies? It seems to the general public that some are ripping clients off, but the Government do not seem to want to do anything about it.
Lord Kamall (Con)
One of the issues the Government have is that the GOV.UK website is pretty rudimentary. As this market develops over time, more and more people will look to private comparison websites—noble Lords have mentioned a few of them. It is also important to distinguish between the different types of PCR test. Some companies charge far more but offer a much quicker turnaround than those whose service might take a few days.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, one might imagine that laboratories would give a reasonably consistent price. This is really all about consistency and fair pricing. That is the issue that needs to be taken into account, and I commend my Cross-Bench colleague for the point she made about the NHS. Given that the written word is often in the eye of the beholder, would it be helpful to have more flow chart-type messaging on the GOV.UK website? The perception is that what is on there is extremely complicated to understand.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Viscount makes an important observation. When I looked at the website myself, I saw how confusing it was. When I discussed this with the people responsible, they said that they had changed it over time; for example, it now has minimum prices—one of the suggestions I made was that perhaps it should also have maximum prices. There is also the question of how you categorise, because there are different tests; some can be turned around in 24 hours, while others take a few days.
Business of the House
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 15 December to enable motions to approve affirmative instruments laid before the House under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to be moved before oral questions that day.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The House will sit at 11 am on Wednesday 15 December to debate regulations about new Covid-19 restrictions. These two Motions simply make the necessary procedural arrangements for the House to sit early.
Business of the House
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That Standing Order 73 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with on Wednesday 15 December to enable motions to approve affirmative instruments laid before the House under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to be moved, notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the instruments will have been laid before the House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, before we go any further, could my noble friend the Leader tell us when the third SI will be laid? I asked the clerks and the Printed Paper Office, but they said it is not there.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I am afraid I do not know, but I will find out. We will message noble Lords as soon as this is over.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]
Monday 13th 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)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I said at Second Reading that this Bill is our opportunity to build on the UK’s record as a world leader in animal welfare. Animal sentience is a matter of scientific fact and it is only right that it is recognised in UK law and properly considered in policy decision-making. I am therefore pleased to see the Bill progress towards becoming law, an outcome for which there is clear and unambiguous public demand.
It has been an honour to lead the Bill through this House. As your Lordships know, it is the first Bill that I have had the privilege of guiding through this House, and the experience has been an educational one. The House is known to offer particularly robust and careful scrutiny of proposed legislation, and I can certainly confirm that it has lived up to its reputation. While the hours of debate may have been long, they were also constructive and informative.
I thank noble Lords on all Benches for working constructively and coming forward with positive suggestions. I am particularly grateful to my noble friends Lord Moylan, Lord Mancroft, who I am pleased to see has risen like Lazarus from his sickbed to be with us today, Lord Marland, Lord Howard of Rising, Lord Forsyth, Lord Caithness, Lord Ridley, whose imminent departure from this House is a matter of great regret, Lady McIntosh and Lady Meyer. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, whose understanding of these matters is second to none, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, the noble Earl, Lord, Kinnoull, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Mallalieu. Finally, I thank all noble Lords who discussed the Bill with me, inside and outside the Chamber. The Bill, and the animal sentience committee’s draft terms of reference, are in better shape than they would otherwise have been as a result of your Lordships’ engagement.
In addition, I thank officials in my department for their many hours of work on the Bill, including the Bill manager, Katherine Yeşilirmak, and her colleagues Hannah Edwins, Jack Darrant, Phoebe Harris and Cathrine Hughes. I am also grateful to my private secretary, Lucy Skelton, and to Hannah Ellis in the Whips’ Office.
I was delighted to see noble Lords across the House support the amendment to include decapods and cephalopods in the Bill. There has been much interest in this issue, and our decision was fully informed by a robust research report.
I must also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, on the Front Benches opposite, for their time and constructive engagement with the Bill. It is a better Bill for their involvement. I am also particularly grateful to my noble friends Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist and Lord Younger of Leckie, whose support and guidance has been indispensable over the past few months.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs and I are united in, to use the words in his Motion, supporting measures to improve animal welfare. I have known and worked with him on these matters for a great many years, and I understand his commitment to animal welfare. I do not propose to revisit all the arguments made at earlier stages of the Bill, but I would like to take a moment to reassure my noble friend that the accountability furnished by the animal sentience committee will be proportionate, timely and targeted.
My noble friend has expressed concern that the committee would glue up government with its analysis and proposals. I respectfully disagree: if anything, I believe it will oil the wheels of the policy-making process. We have indicated that the committee should look to produce six to eight reports a year. It will have to select policy decisions very carefully, and the administrative burden that is created will be light. Furthermore, the committee is not empowered to make recommendations on the substance of policy decisions; its recommendations will be strictly limited to consideration of the animal welfare impacts of the policy decision. It is therefore difficult to see how the committee would hinder the business of government in the way that my noble friend describes.
I understand why my noble friend has asked about the need for two committees. To be clear, the animal sentience committee is the only new committee to be established. It needs to be referred to in statute to provide for the effective parliamentary accountability that we envisage. By comparison, the existing Animal Welfare Committee advises, rather than scrutinises, Defra and the devolved Governments of Wales and Scotland about particular animal welfare issues that have been remitted to it. Ministers are not required by law to respond to the points made in the reports published by the Animal Welfare Committee, which is not established in legislation. I hope this reassures my noble friend, and that he will be willing not to move his amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Herbert of South Downs
At the end insert “but that this House, while strongly supporting measures to improve animal welfare, regrets the way in which the proposed Animal Sentience Committee is to be established”.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my positions in the Countryside Alliance, including chairman, which I have declared in the register of Members’ interests. I regret detaining the House. I appreciate that there is important business next on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. However, as the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill leaves the House, I feel that there are important issues that need to be addressed. I would like to make two points at the outset.
First, none of what I am going to say is an attack on my noble friend the Minister. He is a good friend and a good man who has been given the impossible job of defending a Bill about which many of us have considerable reservations, and has done so with unfailing grace and humour. I am genuinely sorry to differ from him on this measure. Secondly, every one of us in this House wants to promote animal welfare. I certainly do. I feel strongly that animals must be treated properly but, whatever the good intentions of those promoting the Bill, I fear that it is not a wise measure as drafted. In fact, if we take a step back, it is actually an incredible measure. It seriously proposes that the effect of any government policy on the welfare of animals may be considered by an unfettered statutory committee and that Ministers must respond to that committee’s reports.
When the Bill started, that measure applied only to vertebrates; now it applies to cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans. That was one of the few amendments made to the Bill, and that was by the Government. At the height of a pandemic which has killed thousands of people and cost our economy billions, we have decided to devote time to passing a law to ensure that no government policy can hurt the feelings of a prawn.
The Government rejected every other amendment put to them. We pointed out that sentience is not actually defined in the legislation; apparently that does not matter. What matters is that Ministers must have regard to sentience, even if we do not know what it actually is. We asked for safeguards to ensure the expertise of the committee’s members. We were told that such protections were not necessary. We asked for constraints to the committee’s scope. We were told that limits to the committee’s unfettered remit were not necessary either. Crucially, we asked why the balancing provisions in the Lisbon treaty, which specifically exempt religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage, were not included and why the Bill goes so much further than the EU measure it claims to replace. We were told that this balancing provision was not necessary either. In fact, apparently no change was necessary.
The Government have been able to ignore every concern expressed, largely on this side, by relying on the kindness of strangers—uncritical support for the measures that would have guaranteed the defeat of any amendment. I wonder whether the Government will come to regret that.
I am sure that Ministers do not intend that this new committee will get out of hand. I am sure they intend to appoint sensible people to it. I am sure they believe their own rhetoric when they say that Ministers decide so they will resist the committee’s recommendations if necessary. This is of little reassurance when the Government have already capitulated in the face of a social media campaign to introduce the committee in the first place. It is like saying, “Don’t worry, we are going to make sure the burglar won’t take anything from your house, but we are going to let him in to make helpful suggestions about your security”. This committee will set its own priorities. It will decide its own agenda. It will rove across government at will and demand answers to its recommendations. The Government may believe that they are answering public concern by setting up the committee in this way, but I fear they are making a massive rod for their own back.
This measure departs from the usual practice of taking careful and specific steps to ensure animal welfare by injecting a broad and ill-defined principle into our public administration. The danger is that, in doing so, it will effectively if unwittingly hand an institutional footing to the animal rights agenda. We are giving leverage and power to that single-issue ideology, which can be uncompromising and extreme, without thinking through the consequences.
We are trying to beat a mutating virus. We are trying to level up, to build back better. We need Government to take better decisions, and more quickly. We need to get things done faster, yet we are putting in place a barely constrained mechanism which is simply bound to glue up government. I am afraid that I differ from my noble friend on that. At best, even with sensible people in place, the committee will put spanners in the works because frankly that will be its job. It will make it harder for Ministers to deliver, to take difficult balancing decisions, which they sometimes must, or to ignore populist sentiment. At worst, without the necessary safeguards in place, the committee risks becoming a Trojan horse, used especially to attack wildlife management farming or the well-being and way of life of our rural communities. We know that this is a real risk because the animal rights agenda is in plain sight, and because its proponents are already incessantly abusing judicial review to force government to do its will.
It is usually this House which provides a robust check on measures propelled by populist wins, yet we have passed the Bill with no amendment, except to extend its scope to beasts such as cuttlefish. Some noble Lords may remember that, 30 years ago, it was only the sober intervention of this House which prevented the then Dangerous Dogs Bill from inadvertently making it a strict liability imprisonable offence for a dog to cause injury by accidentally knocking someone off their bicycle. That Bill had foolishly been driven through all its Commons stages in a single day, but today we are showing ourselves to be more inclined to bend without sufficient thought to populism, and now it will fall to Members of the House of Commons to address the deficiencies in this proposal.
We all want to advance animal welfare, but the sentience provisions in the Lisbon treaty had little or nothing to do with the succession of admirable legislation which for over a century has been passed by this Parliament. In fact, with Brexit, we have the freedom to pass laws to protect animals which would not have been possible before—to address puppy smuggling, for instance. Even before this sentience Bill has been passed, other government Bills to protect animals have been introduced or announced, which only goes to prove that this Bill, creating this committee in this way, is not necessarily to protect animals.
I have offered these remarks in the hope that even as the Bill leaves this House, there is still a chance that its serious deficiencies will be addressed and that we will return to focusing on specific workable measures to improve the welfare of animals in ways which we all want and can all support. I beg to move.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend the Minister who, with good humour throughout, has defended what is frankly almost indefensible. He has done extremely well, and I hope that he is congratulated by the higher ranks of the Government. I associate myself entirely with the excellent points made by my noble friend Lord Herbert. I will not repeat them, but I will repeat that this is a shockingly bad piece of legislation which should be an embarrassment to the Government.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as a member of the RSPCA and president of the Countryside Alliance and the Horse Trust. I too thank the Minister for his patience and courtesy during the passage of this Bill. Given the opposition from parts of the House, this cannot have been an unalloyed pleasure for him.
It gives me no pleasure to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, but I must. I cannot understand how a Government who were elected in no small part promising to reduce bureaucracy, especially that which came from Europe, can have taken the wholly uncontroversial subject of putting animal sentience on the statute book, something which nobody would disagree with, and now seem bent on turning it into a textbook bureaucratic nightmare.
When the former Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, told us during the passage of the Bill that it creates a magnet for judicial review; when the foremost vet in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who supports the Bill, tells us that its scope needs definition and its focus sharpened on to future policy decisions; when the former Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the former leader of the party opposite, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and many others, tell the Government that they need to think again, yet they resist and reject all amendments, save for a small number of government ones, it makes me wonder whether this House has actual value as a scrutinising House when they have the comfort of a large majority in another place and know that they are able to push defective Bills through almost unamended there.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Herbert for taking the trouble to move his amendment today and giving us an opportunity to say a few words in the dying moments of the Bill. I also apologise to your Lordships for my failure to move my amendments last week on Report. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, I was knocked over by Covid, but whether I jumped up like Lazarus I am not entirely sure. I think the reason that I am back so rapidly is that my wife was sick of having me about the house, but I am awfully glad to be back in your Lordships’ House anyway.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, just said, this Bill introduces the concept of sentience into English law for the first time, despite the fact that it has been the basis for 150 years of very sound animal welfare legislation, so you might wonder why we need to put it on the statute book today. I suggest we probably do not. It also sets up a new animal welfare committee—the animal sentience committee—despite the fact that we have three very good committees looking at animal welfare at the moment, each of which could have fulfilled the tasks set for this committee, so you might wonder why we want this.
As the noble Baroness also said, this is a revising Chamber, except that the Government have chosen to ignore all the suggestions made by Members of this House on all sides, as she said: the noble Lord, Lord Trees, whose knowledge of veterinary science can hardly be equalled; the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who I do not think is in her place today, but who put forward some very important points; and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, herself, on the other side of the House, who made very reasoned amendments and suggestions to this House—as everybody did—none of which were politically based at all.
I have done as much research as I can, and I believe that this is the first statutory committee set up by statute which has no statutory terms of reference. The Government recognised this when it was raised in Committee, and so between Committee and Report they introduced 27 pages of terms of reference for the committee that they propose to set up. But they are not statutory; they can be altered by any official or Minister at the stroke of a pen. They have absolutely no basis in law; they are effectively legislatively worthless.
The Government have argued throughout that this is a minor measure of very little significance—in which case, why have your Lordships been bothered with it for four long, paralysingly boring days? I do not think it is a measure of little significance. Like my noble friend Lord Herbert, I think it is a potentially very dangerous measure that will come back to bite this Government—or, more particularly, future Governments—as the years go by. This House will regret the fact that we have passed it without any amendment and have allowed ourselves to be rolled over.
There is little support for this measure on the Government Benches. I have looked very carefully, but I have seen very little support for it on the Opposition Benches. In fact, I have seen very little support for it anywhere except on the Front Benches, where a rather unsavoury deal has been stitched up to allow this to go to the other place without a single amendment, despite the care and attention which your Lordships have given the Bill. It is the tradition in this House that we send Bills to the other place with good will; we wish them a fair wind. I do not wish this Bill a fair wind. I hope the other place does the duty that we should have done and changes it very considerably or, better still, destroys it completely. Failing that, I hope that a sensible Secretary of State in future fails to enact it.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I, too, support what my noble friend Lord Herbert said. I underline a point made by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. This sets a parliamentary precedent in the appointment of statutory committees which could have huge ramifications for future Bills. The Government will be able to say that we do not need to set out the statutory terms of reference for the committee because we already have the precedent of this Bill.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Benyon has had to take this Bill through the House. It should have been another Minister. My noble friend was absolutely right when he said that he has had to drive it through the House. He has not looked right; he has not looked straight ahead. He has looked left. He rightly paid tribute to his co-driver, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock.
Finally, I am disappointed that I have not yet received a reply from my noble friend to the questions I posed on Report. I hope that he will expedite those.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I, also, support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Herbert. Even at this late stage, it is worth emphasising that the absence of any restriction on the purview of the sentience committee will mean that no recreational activity, cultural tradition, regional heritage or religious rite—in its practice or observance—is safe from scrutiny by the committee.
In Committee, the Minister was good enough to give some reassurances about the long-standing practices of religious slaughter in this country going back hundreds of years. The trouble is that the only policy that has been disclosed means that it will be open to any future Secretary of State, Minister or future Government to take a different view. Unlike under the Lisbon treaty, there is absolutely nothing to restrain them from doing so.
As I said on Report, if the Government decided not to follow a recommendation from the sentience committee on contentious issues relating to animal welfare, it would inevitably give rise to the potential for judicial review and challenge. You cannot stop people bringing a judicial review. The Government may be confident that they would win, but these will not be straightforward matters. One will have to consider whether the sentience committee has acted within its statutory rights, whether or not the evidence sufficiently supports what the committee recommends and whether the Government have sufficient other factors which outweigh the recommendation of the committee. I agree that this Bill is going to come back to bite badly.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I associate myself totally with the brilliantly moved amendment from my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs. He encapsulated the folly of this legislation, from which I have kept myself apart because I was, frankly, so appalled to think that a Conservative Government could introduce such a piece of legislation.
My noble friend Lord Herbert was exactly right in all he said, as was my noble friend Lord Mancroft. It is a joy to see him back. I hope that he has made a full recovery. These are people who know about the countryside. Nobody could have put it better than my noble friend Lord Herbert when he asked why Parliament was consuming itself with consideration for the welfare of the prawn when, all around, people are in danger from a deadly virus. It shows a completely warped sense of perspective and priority of which I feel deeply ashamed. If my noble friend presses his amendment to the vote—which I hope he will—he will have my unreserved support.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I also associate myself with and will support the regret amendment. I have not been able to be at the discussions on the Bill, but I followed them very closely in Hansard because it is an issue I am interested in. There is one point to note: the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, made a brief reference to populism. I want to speak on behalf of the public, who might well support animal welfare, but I can tell you that if you talk to anybody outside this House and tell them what the Bill contains, they are equally appalled. The irony is that it is not fair for anyone to try to say that, as a consequence, the public might somehow get the blame for this badly formed, badly written, badly drafted, philosophically ridiculous and anti-human Bill. I do not think that is fair. Although I am sure all of us are concerned with animal welfare, the Bill is not about preserving the welfare of animals. It actually takes us into very dark, deep territory, and a bureaucratic nightmare. It is completely anti-democratic and the public would be appalled if they read the debates in Hansard in great detail.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs and my noble and indestructible friend Lord Mancroft. I asked at Second Reading: to what problem is this legislation a solution? I listened carefully through Committee and Report and I did not get an answer. I am afraid that I am reluctantly thrown back to the conclusion that this was a Bill brought forward in response to a fake press release—that, at the Dispatch Box in another place, the Minister was panicked into promising legislation in response to a false story to the effect that Conservatives had voted to say that animals were not sentient. Declamatory law of this kind invites unintended consequences. It is almost a textbook definition of how not to legislate. It does not reflect well on our lawmaking process that this House has been prevented from exerting its ameliorating and scrutinising function. I hope that that function will be taken up in another place.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs. I fear I do not agree that this Bill was a waste of parliamentary time. A large number of Bills are coming forward during the pandemic that are not health related, but it is important that legislation moves forward and does not get bogged down in Covid. Similarly, I listened to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, who, unfortunately, was not able to be here at the beginning of the debate. I live in a rural community and support the rural way of life, and I do not feel the Bill threatens either the ethos or the practical way of life in rural communities. This is overstated.
I congratulate the Minister on his remarks and on eventually getting this very short but important Bill to the point of being able to pass it on to the other place. I did not envisage at the start of the process that it would be so controversial in some quarters of the Government Benches, who, in their own words, have attempted to paralyse the House with boredom.
I thank the Minister for his time and that of his officials in providing briefings along the way, and for his patience in dealing with the many amendments and queries that came forward. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for her time and assistance in helping to steer the Bill forward. It is always better when Front Benches are united in moving a Bill forward.
The amendments that have been accepted have improved the Bill. It will be interesting to see how the Bill is received in the other place and whether it will make any further amendments. No doubt it will be heavily lobbied by the spokespeople this afternoon. I support the thrust of the Bill and look forward to working with the Minister on future legislation.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, on these Benches we have listened to the speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, and other noble Lords, but we cannot support the amendment. I am sure noble Lords are not surprised to hear that. I will not go into any details. At Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, we discussed in depth and at length exactly the same issues as we have today, and I am fairly confident that any noble Lord present at any of those debates understands fully my feelings on these issues.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Herbert for his contributions to today’s proceedings and earlier debates on the Bill. I have previously addressed at length a number of the points he raised, so I do not intend to detain the House long. He made an incredibly good speech, and some of his points struck home—I felt a bit like that painting of St Sebastian.
The weakest argument he put, echoed by my noble friend Lord Cormack, seemed to suggest that this House cannot hold two thoughts in its head at the same time. Of course, the priority of this House, the Government and all of us is to deal with the pandemic, but the idea that you cannot produce legislation on any other subject, which is the logical conclusion of his argument, is one that I am afraid I do not agree with. But he made other very good points.
I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that this concept of animal sentience was on the statute book; we had it under Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty. The debate, which will continue in another place, is about the degree to which we transpose that. I understand the points she made.
I make an absolute assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who is not here. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, made a very good point, and I respect him and his knowledge. On the point about judicial review, we have done all we can to limit the duties that a Minister has to abide by. That is where judicial review really hurts Ministers—if they fail to follow a duty in the Bill—but I absolutely concede that organisations will continuously try to judicially review the Government, on this legislation and elsewhere. The question is: will it be successful? Will it be permitted to be taken forward? Just the week before last, an organisation wanted to take the Government to judicial review and was refused by the courts.
Finally, on religious rites, I made a promise on Report and continue to make that point. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, and others made genuine points about concerns in the communities they come from or sought to represent in their words on this Bill. I and the Government take these concerns really seriously and want to give them every assurance that the Government’s policy remains to support them on these matters of religious importance and on how they wish to have animals slaughtered. We will make officials and Ministers available to give those added reassurances.
I again thank all those involved to date in the Bill’s passage and hope my noble friend will be persuaded not to push his amendment.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, this has been a good airing of the issues; we have all said our piece. I have no wish to try the patience of the House, which wishes to get on to other matters, any longer. I hope that Members of Parliament will heed what has been said, and that in due course we will have an opportunity to consider amendments that they make, so that this House performs the job of being a revising Chamber—because the Bill has not so far been revised at all. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Monday 13th December 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 72-II Manuscript amendment for Report, supplementary to the Second Marshalled List - (13 Dec 2021)
16:12 - Division on Amendment 35 - Ayes: 83 / Noes: 183 - Amendment 35 disagreed.
19:04 - Division on Amendment 55ZB - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 171 - Amendment 55ZB disagreed.
19:20 - Division on Amendment 55A - Ayes: 71 / Noes: 167 - Amendment 55A disagreed.
(i) domestic abuse within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see section 1 of that Act),(ii) sexual offences,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that “violence” for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Part 2 includes domestic abuse and sexual offences.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, as I set out in Committee, the Government are absolutely committed to tackling violence against women and girls. In July this year, we published a cross-government Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls strategy, which set out a range of actions to help ensure that more perpetrators are brought to justice and face the full force of the law, that we improve support to victims and survivors, and, ultimately, that we work to prevent these crimes. Our complementary domestic abuse strategy will be published early next year. However, there is always scope to do more. In Committee, I undertook to consider further an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Bertin, which sought to expressly provide in the Bill that “violence” for the purposes of the serious violence duty includes domestic abuse, domestic homicide and sexual violence.
I reiterate that the draft statutory guidance for the serious violence duty already makes it clear that specified authorities are able to take into account any form of serious violence that is of particular concern in a local area in their strategies. The guidance specifies that this could include, for example, domestic violence, alcohol-related violence, sexual exploitation, modern slavery or gender-based violence. We have been clear throughout that we believe that specified authorities are best placed to determine what the priorities should be for their area based on the local evidence. However, we agree that there is benefit to making it absolutely clear in the Bill that domestic abuse and sexual offences, perpetrated against adults or children, are included within the meaning of “violence” for the purposes of the serious violence duty. These government amendments do just that. To ensure that clarity, the amendments include definitions of “domestic abuse”, importing that contained in Section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and of “sexual offences”, utilising the list in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, subject to certain appropriate modifications.
I commend my noble friend and Nicole Jacobs, the domestic abuse commissioner, for their campaigning on this issue. These amendments are a tribute to their work and I commend them to the House.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to welcome this group of government amendments. Making the change to explicitly recognise that domestic abuse and sexual offences are included in the Bill’s definition of violence really matters. It sends the signal loud and clear that these destructive and damaging crimes cannot just be swept under the carpet, ignored or tolerated, and that not tackling them is no longer an option.
The omission in the original legislation risked undermining very real progress and momentum in our fight against these pervasive offences, and the Government deserve real credit for recognising that and making this change. I thank again my noble friend the Minister, who does a huge amount on the Floor of this House but also an awful lot behind the scenes. These amendments may seem very easy to get over the line but they are not, and I know that she did a huge amount behind the scenes to ensure that that happened. I also thank the Home Secretary, because I know that she gets this and that she cares. The continued political leadership in this area from both of them is greatly needed if we are to continue making this kind of progress, so I thank them for that. I echo what my noble friend the Minister said about the domestic abuse commissioner and her dedicated team. If there was a blueprint of how to put together a brilliant team that supports so many important changes that have to be made, hers is that blueprint, and that team deserves huge credit today.
If done properly, this change will make a fundamental difference to how we tackle these crimes; putting prevention front and centre is the only way in which we can hope to be making different speeches in 10 years’ time. These amendments may be simple on the face of it, but the reality on the ground is very complex, and it is vital that the accompanying guidance gives local authorities the best chance of success.
On the guidance more broadly, I want to make a couple of points. I hope that the Home Office will continue to work with the domestic abuse commissioner’s office, as well as sector specialists and violence reduction units, which are already making these changes on violence against women and girls, domestic abuse and sexual offences—notably, in Nottingham and London—to make sure that the detail of best practice is properly communicated and effectively rolled out. One concern that I still have is that the guidance still refers local authorities back to the serious violence strategy, although the strategy still makes no reference to domestic abuse or sexual offences. Therefore, the guidance should be beefed up to help that omission.
The monitoring of the duty will also be vital. I would welcome close scrutiny from the Home Office to understand why any areas did not include these crime types, when we know how prolific they are nationally. I would also welcome greater involvement from the HMICFRS in responding to the new duty and how it is working in relation to these offences.
Briefly and finally, I want to talk about stalking. I absolutely accept the omission of stalking in this amendment, although reluctantly. However, does my noble friend the Minister agree that much more urgency and joined-up thinking needs to be applied to this crime? There is still a huge gap in understanding across the entire criminal justice system, from policing to the judiciary. The ratio of victims to convictions is absolutely wrong. We know that approximately half of stalking-related cases are perpetrated by a current or ex-partner. Could she clarify and confirm that ex-intimate partner-related stalking, such as domestic abuse-related stalking, is implicitly understood and intended to be included in the duty?
Given that the other half of stalking cases are stranger cases, I very much believe that the spirit of this duty should extend to all forms of stalking. It will therefore be essential to ensure that specific and robust instruction on the nature of stalking and the types of interventions needed to tackle it are included in the guidance. In particular, I would welcome an explicit reference to MASIP, a multi-agency approach to managing the risk and reducing reoffending by stalking perpetrators. Not enough local authorities or police forces use that approach, but it does work—I have witnessed it myself in the Met team. It helps front-line officers to understand what they are dealing with. There are experts there, including potentially mental health experts, and it is an important new approach to this crime.
All in all, today is very welcome, and I hope that it gives victims hope and reassures them that their voices are beginning to be heard.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I join others in thanking the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, on securing this important concession to the Bill.
Last Wednesday, we had a really well-argued and informed debate. It is worth taking a couple of minutes to look at the recent history of this issue. Going back to coalition times, when Theresa May was Home Secretary, she had weekly meetings around a table with women from every department. She challenged them on what they were doing in the department and then asked them the following week what had happened, so she really kept the pot boiling. As a result, the coalition Government published the first call to end violence against women and girls just after they were formed in 2010. Activity carries on: my honourable friend Wera Hobhouse, through a Private Member’s Bill, introduced a new offence for upskirting. However, offences for stalking, controlling or coercive behaviour, and so-called revenge porn should also follow.
While I regret that my noble friend Lady Brinton was unable to persuade the Minister to include stalking in the definition of serious violence, we welcome the government amendment before us today on violence, particularly sexual violence. Violence is not acceptable in any circumstances, but violence by men towards women and girls is completely unacceptable. As many noble Lords said during debates on this issue in Committee, it is vital to have a multi-agency public health approach to prevent domestic abuse and sexual violence.
Including domestic abuse and sexual violence in the definition of serious violence will ensure that local areas properly take account of this within their strategies and work in a joined-up way to address and prevent these crimes. The setting up of local integrated care systems as a result of the Health and Care Bill, which is before your Lordships’ House, might be a useful first provider of support for families affected. In the Minister’s response, will she please outline the initiatives that the Government will implement, not only to support the families involved, but also the perpetrators of the crimes?
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister said, government Amendment 15 clarifies that violence for the purposes of Part 2, Chapter 1 includes domestic abuse and sexual offences. We very much welcome these government amendments, the object of which has been a key issue for these Benches. It is a hugely important change to the Bill and an example of what can be achieved by this House, and indeed by Parliament as a whole, through proper scrutiny.
I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, and to Nicole Jacobs, the domestic abuse commissioner, for the key roles that they played on this issue. I also pay tribute to my honourable friends Sarah Jones MP and Jess Phillips MP who began a campaign for this change when the Bill arrived in the Commons in March. This has been a cross-party, cross-House effort to ensure that these extremely serious, high-harm types of violence are recognised as such and are prioritised.
It has been mentioned that, although these amendments add domestic abuse and sexual violence to the definition, they do not specifically include stalking. Stalking that involves domestic abuse and sexual offences would be covered by the terms of these government amendments, which provide for the inclusion of violence against women and girls in the definition of serious violence. Of course, that does not include all cases of stalking. I hope and expect that we will hear from the Minister at some stage during the remaining stages of this Bill what the Government are doing to change the way we respond to stalking across the board.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Bertin for her comments. I share entirely my noble friend’s commitment to ensuring that best practice in this area is properly communicated to duty holders. That is what will make it effective. I look forward to working with the domestic abuse commissioner’s office and wider stakeholders to develop the statutory guidance which will be subject to public consultation following Royal Assent. We intend to develop options and include detail on monitoring progress in our statutory guidance. In addition, specified authorities will be requested to keep their strategy under review. PCCs will also have a discretionary power to monitor performance, and routine inspection programmes undertaken by individual inspectorates in future may also consider the organisational response to local serious violence issues.
As my noble friend and others will know, the statutory guidance under Clause 18 already includes references to sexual offences, domestic abuse and gender-based violence. In updating the guidance ahead of the consultation, we will explore whether we should revise it to make it clear to specified authorities that they should consider violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse and sexual offences, in determining what amounts to serious violence in their areas.
In terms of stalking, we are very clear that the reference to domestic abuse to be added by the government amendments will encompass stalking in so far as it takes place in a domestic abuse context. Noble Lords will know that while many stalking offences take place in a domestic abuse context or involve violent behaviour, it is not the case in all instances. We have not expressly set these out in the Bill because we are seeking to avoid an exhaustive list of crime types, partly to allow local areas to take account of new and emerging forms of serious violence as they develop and are identified, and partly to recognise the geographical difference in the prevalence of these types of serious violent crimes.
As I have said, the draft statutory guidance for the duty sets out that there is flexibility for local areas to take account of their evidence-based strategic needs assessment and include in their strategy actions which focus on other related types of serious violence, including gender-based violence, which includes all forms of stalking as well as many other forms of violence against women and girls. We can look to make that clearer in the next iteration of the guidance, which we will be consulting on, as I have said. This is a view shared by the domestic abuse commissioner, and I put on record—following my noble friend’s thanks—my thanks to her for her continued engagement in this area.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My noble friend referred to sexual violence against women and girls. Can I clarify that this legislation actually covers all aspects of sexual abuse and stalking, not just that against women and girls?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am glad my noble friend has mentioned that. We have said right from the outset that it covers both sexes, but this violence is predominantly meted out to women and girls; that is why noble Lords sometimes question this. But, of course, anyone who is a victim of domestic abuse or serious violence is captured by this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked me about the initiatives we have in place. We have tripled the funding we provide to the National Stalking Helpline, run by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, this year. The additional funding is enabling the trust to answer more calls and expand its advocacy service. I set out in Committee the other actions we are taking to tackle stalking, and I refer the noble Baroness to those comments. Our forthcoming domestic abuse strategy will include stalking as well.
On that note, I hope that I have answered my noble friend’s questions and those of other noble Lords. I conclude by thanking my noble friend and the commissioner, and I beg to move.
“(3A) In subsection (3)(a)(ii), “sexual offence” means an offence under the law of England and Wales which is for the time being specified in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, other than the offence specified in paragraph 14 of that Schedule (fraudulent evasion of excise duty).(3B) In determining for the purposes of subsection (3A) whether an offence is specified in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, any limitation in that Schedule referring to the circumstances of a particular case (including the sentence imposed) is to be disregarded.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “sexual offence” for the purposes of the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 13, line 12 by reference to most of the England and Wales offences for the time being specified in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment modifies the reference in Clause 12(4) to any offence involved in violence to which Chapter 1 of Part 2 applies so that it is clear that such violence may not involve an offence.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 15, line 41, page 15, line 42 and page 15, line 45 have the effect that Clause 15 does not authorise the disclosure of patient information or the disclosure of personal information by a health or social care authority.
“(za) the disclosure of patient information,(zb) the disclosure of personal information by a specified authority which is a health or social care authority,”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 15, line 41.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 15, line 41.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 15, line 41.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment limits the information that may be requested by a local policing body under Clause 16 to information held by the person to whom the request is made.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 16, line 35, page 16, line 36 and page 16, line 39 have the effect that Clause 16 does not require the disclosure of patient information or the disclosure of personal information by a health or social care authority.
“(za) the disclosure of patient information,(zb) the disclosure of personal information by a specified authority which is a health or social care authority,”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 16, line 35.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 16, line 35.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 16, line 35.
Lord Paddick
Member’s explanatory statement
This removes the provisions enabling the Secretary of State to give directions to require compliance with the serious violence duty.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I indicated on Wednesday that I would divide the House on leaving out Clause 17, so I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“(4) After issuing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the guidance before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires guidance from the Secretary of State relating to Chapter 1 of Part 2 to be laid before Parliament.
(i) domestic abuse within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see section 1 of that Act),(ii) sexual offences,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that “violence” for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 includes domestic abuse and sexual offences.
“(1ZA) In the definition of “violence” in subsection (1) “sexual offence” means an offence under the law of England and Wales which is for the time being specified in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, other than the offence specified in paragraph 14 of that Schedule (fraudulent evasion of excise duty).(1ZB) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1ZA) whether an offence is specified in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, any limitation in that Schedule referring to the circumstances of a particular case (including the sentence imposed) is to be disregarded.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “sexual offence” for the purposes of the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 19, line 7 by reference to most of the England and Wales offences for the time being specified in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment modifies the reference in section 18(1B) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to any offence involved in violence to which Chapter 1 of Part 1 of that Act applies so that it is clear that such violence may not involve an offence.
health or social care authority | section 9(9)” |
“patient information | section 9(9) |
personal information | section 9(9)” |
“(3) After issuing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the guidance before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires guidance from the Secretary of State relating to Chapter 2 of Part 2 to be laid before Parliament.
“Domestic homicide reviews
(1) Section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 is amended as follows.(2) For subsection (2) substitute—“(2) The Secretary of State must in all cases which meet the circumstances set out in subsection (1) direct a specified person or body within subsection (4) to establish, or to participate in, a domestic homicide review.”(3) After subsection (3) insert—“(3ZA) The Secretary of State must by regulations set out—(a) the type of data relating to domestic homicide reviews which must be recorded, including—(i) the number of domestic homicide reviews taking place across England and Wales annually; and(ii) the time taken to complete each individual domestic homicide review;(b) that the data must be recorded centrally in a Home Office database; and(c) that the data must be published annually.””
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the new clause introduced by Amendment 42A seeks to modify the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to force the Secretary of State to automatically direct a domestic homicide review in the circumstances outlined in Section 9 of the Act. The new clause also aims to improve data collection methodologies around domestic homicide reviews.
My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved this amendment in Committee. The purpose of retabling it is to get a response from the Government. A letter was promised but none has been received as far as I am aware.
In preparing for this short debate, I reread the 2016 Home Office report on domestic homicide reviews. As the Minister will be aware, some strong themes emerged from that report, including the importance of record-keeping by the police and a multi-agency approach. Another particular theme was the need for GPs to keep records of people who reported domestic abuse.
In moving his amendment in Committee, my and learned noble friend asked three questions that I shall briefly repeat. First, it is difficult to see in Section 9 of the 2004 Act whether there is an obligation in every case for there to be a domestic homicide review. We think that there should be. Can the Minister confirm the Government's position on this question? Will she consider legislating to ensure that there is a review in every case?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, if domestic abuse is now included in the serious violence duty—and there is no more serious violence than murder—can the Minister say how the Government can resist this amendment, which we support?
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, if I may just say a few words in support of this amendment, which was moved with such clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, two points seem to me to arise. The first is that if the reviews are held in a centralised way, they will be more efficient. There will be less of a postcode lottery when it comes to the review taking place. Secondly, and most importantly, if social services, medical services, the police and others know that there will be a review in every case in which there is murder as a result of a domestic situation, they will take greater care. We know that that has not, unfortunately, always been the case, whatever their good intentions.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for outlining this amendment with such clarity. Domestic homicide is a horrendous crime and I reassure the House that tackling this is a key priority for the Government. Part of the solution is ensuring that domestic homicide reviews take place at every opportunity. They offer an opportunity, as the noble Lord said, to learn lessons to prevent the same mistakes occurring again. It is important that every domestic homicide is considered for a domestic homicide review so that, as he said, lessons can be learned and further deaths prevented.
I reassure the noble Lord that domestic homicide reviews are conducted in the great majority of cases, but there may be instances where one is not appropriate or necessary. The Government are clear that domestic homicide reviews should be considered at every opportunity, and the 2004 Act already makes provision for the Home Secretary to direct that a domestic homicide review takes place where required.
When a community safety partnership decides not to conduct a review, the decision is closely scrutinised and escalated to the Home Secretary to enable her to use her powers to direct a domestic homicide review, if appropriate. This involves a review of the decision by the independent quality assurance panel, whose views form the basis of the advice provided to the Secretary of State. The review of all decisions not to conduct a review is a new process implemented earlier this year. Since implementing it, the Secretary of State has directed four homicide reviews. I hope the noble Lord sees this as an example of how seriously this Government take these reviews.
On data collection, I reiterate to noble Lords that the Home Office has in fact committed to creating an online central repository of domestic homicide reviews to improve accessibility, exactly for the reason the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Ponsonby, pointed out. At present, all reports are published on individual local authority or community safety partnership websites, but often only for a limited period. Creating the central repository will mean that all completed reviews are readily available, including to support the monitoring of the implementation of any recommendations. This is expected to go live next year. I understand that the terms of reference of the review have been published.
Regarding the letter the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, cited at the beginning of his remarks, I will do some investigating and come back to him, because I really do not know what has happened to it. That is unfortunate, but I will chase it up and ensure he has a response. With that, I hope he will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I will of course withdraw the amendment, which was essentially intended to nudge the noble Baroness. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made a very reasonable point when he highlighted the postcode lottery if there is not a review of all cases. He also said—I thought very persuasively—that services will take greater care if they know there will be a review. Perhaps I could ask for an additional, interesting piece of information to be included in the letter: how many domestic homicides have there been in a recent period where there has not been a review? I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“(4A) The user may choose to be in the presence of the authorised person during the extraction unless either the user or the authorised person deems it impracticable or inappropriate, in which case an explanation must be set out in writing in the agreement referred to in subsection (1).” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with another amendment to Clause 36, page 29, line 32, in the name of Baroness Chakrabarti, would permit the user to choose whether to be present during the digital extraction, unless deemed impracticable or inappropriate; and create a statutory time limit for the authorised person’s retention of the device in the event that it is necessary to take possession of it. If the time frame elapsed without extraction taking place, a new agreement would need to be sought.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments and the related clauses address the phenomenon that those unfortunate enough to have experienced it call digital strip-searching—the practice of demanding a complainant’s device, usually a mobile phone, in the police station in return for agreeing to pursue a criminal investigation, usually into an alleged sex offence such as rape.
I begin by thanking the Minister for taking the problem seriously and understanding the need to address it via statute. I am afraid that I remember Ministers standing at that Dispatch Box even a couple of years ago, denying that the practice was problematic, widespread or disproportionate and even arguing against the need for primary legislation—so-called consent, in exchange for a vindication of one’s fundamental right to an investigation into such a serious crime, being sufficient. Mansplaining to rape survivors is bad enough; “Baronsplaining”, if I may call it that, was a new level of insensitivity.
I will not insult the empathy of your Lordships’ House by reiterating why an extraction of data from a personal smartphone or computer is one of the most intimate searches in the modern era and can leave the complainant feeling more like a suspect, even if the extraction is swift and on the spot and takes no more data than is strictly necessary to the particular investigation. That successive Governments, DPPs and police leaders have failed to address this problem must have played at least some part in our appalling attrition rates for the prosecution of sex offences.
While this part of the Bill is a much-needed attempted correction, we would not need to amend it if survivor and human rights groups had been properly consulted. I declare an interest as a council member of the all-party group, Justice. Amendments 43 to 46, 48 and 51 in my name are advanced by a broad coalition of civil society organisations, led by Big Brother Watch, Amnesty International, the Centre for Women’s Justice and Rape Crisis. They are currently unconvinced that the Bill, either as it stands or with proposed government amendments, does enough to protect complainants and rebuild trust in the investigation and prosecution of sex offences.
Amendments 43 and 44 allow the complainant to be present during the extraction of data, unless that is impracticable or inappropriate, and create a time limit for any police retention of the device. Amendment 45 would make the threshold for extraction the tighter and objective ECHR test of strict necessity, and Amendment 46 would further tighten the criteria. Amendment 48 would allow a DCI review of the strict necessity of any extraction agreement, and Amendment 51 requires a fuller explanation of the person’s rights before they agree. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Crucially, his Amendment 50 ensures that the explanation is given orally, as well as in writing. My noble friend Lord Rosser’s Amendment 52A makes provision for data in the hands of a third party.
Government Amendment 52 in the Minister’s name creates a proportionality but not a strict necessity test for extraction where the authorised person is of the subjective view that there is a risk of obtaining confidential information—of course there is. Amendments 53 to 56 replace the need for regulations with the laying of statutory guidance.
The government provision still contains fewer statutory safeguards than sought by the victims’ rights coalition, so I urge the Minister to move further in its direction by accepting its amendments, refining or tweaking them at Third Reading or, at the very least—and before the preparation of any statutory guidance under the new legislation—agreeing to meet with a small group of those representing voices that have been ignored for too long. I beg to move.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I am ready to support the commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in bringing forward this amendment, and appreciative of the Minister’s moves as represented in the government amendments. I simply want to clarify some points, because there are still concerns in this area. Some of the concerns arise from the context.
Police abuse of procedures of various kinds has been apparent, even to the extent of affecting murder victims. It cannot be denied that within police forces there are a few people who will do these things. That makes it that much more difficult to have complete confidence in the voluntary arrangements that these amendments deal with. I ask the questions: how voluntary, how confidential, and how about disclosure?
How voluntary? When someone is asked to hand over their phone, the police officer usually says, “It’s up to you but unless you hand over your phone to me, I can’t see the Crown Prosecution Service having enough material to take this case forward, and I think that would probably be the end of your attempt to get justice”. I am paraphrasing, but that might effectively be what he says. That means the safeguards are important, and I welcome them, but will they be sufficient?
How confidential? Government Amendment 49 says “confidential” has the meaning it has in Amendment 47, but Amendment 47 does not actually define “confidential”. Clearly, on somebody’s phone there is a great range of confidentiality: from what might be a conversation about an intimate relationship through to a bank account, a family row or something else that someone regards as in need of safeguarding and treating as confidential. We need to be a little clearer about that.
What about disclosure? Can the Minister say a little about to what extent, if any, the requirement of disclosing material to the defence is affected by these provisions? That puts a further pressure, of course, on the victim of the crime, but it is an essential part of our justice system that when evidence is found that would assist the defence, it is the duty of the prosecution to hand it over. These are the points that concern me.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beith, with his usual remarkable acuity, has put his finger on a very important point, which is the question of disclosure. It is clear that police forces have tended to use disclosure as the reason for obtaining much of the material that has been unnecessarily obtained, so let us be clear what the duty of disclosure is. There is a duty to disclose to the defence material that undermines the prosecution case or materially assists the defence case, but that cannot be a reason for oppressive conduct against a complainant.
I absolutely commend the amendments tabled by the Government—they are extremely helpful in taking this issue forward—but I also support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, which would strengthen the forward-looking view of the amendments. It is a real risk that women, and indeed young men, who are the victims of rape will not pursue the case because they feel oppressed, embarrassed or threatened by unnecessary requirements framed under the heading “disclosure”.
We have a situation in which the number of rape cases prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service, and the number of alleged rape cases reported by the police to the CPS, has diminished dramatically over the years. It is no accident; the CPS does not like to run the risk of losing cases if it can avoid it. There are certain types of cases where there might be an inherently higher risk of a prosecution failing, but they should still be prosecuted at a significant level because of the effect the complaints behind those cases have on the way society operates—the way men and women, and men and men, have their relationships, which are so crucial to a stable society. I believe that the CPS has been completely wrong and unwise to abandon the procedures put in place in previous years. I regret that it has failed to recognise that in as clear a way as it should.
I hope very much that the Government will look at all these amendments together and accept that improvements can be made to achieve an end that we all share. The way our children and, for some of us, our grandchildren now use their mobile phones is quite different from anything we would have imagined. They share intimacies on their mobile phones that would have been shared only orally one generation ago and not at all two generations ago. This is a change in our society. We have to recognise that we must respect some part of the privacy of such material.
My final point is that there is a great responsibility particularly on the police. I absolutely recognise that there are expert police officers dealing with RASSO cases now, but there is an absolute responsibility on police officers, including in rural areas where there is a significant shortage of training for specialist police officers, to explain to complainants what is going on before they ask for the material and before those individuals have to make a decision as to how much of their intimate material to reveal to the police, and potentially to the court. One of the pieces of advice that should be given to them—I am afraid I have to confess that I have done this—is that some quite extensive cross-examination sometimes takes place in courts that is not expected by victims of rape. My support is, I hope, intensely practical and intended to be constructive.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I very much hope the Minister can listen to this, because it is obvious that there is a general concern. I will keep my remarks brief because I agree with everything that has been said so far, particularly on the Hobson’s choice that victims are often given: either they hand their telephone over voluntarily or they have it confiscated. That really is an abuse of procedure.
I would like the Minister to answer a question for me: if there is that threat inherent in what the police tell a victim, would any evidence gathered under Clause 36 be inadmissible in court? I rather think it should be. We should remember that government Ministers have been very reluctant to have their electronic devices pored over by the police, and have dropped them or broken them or things like that. This is an intrusive and invasive procedure. It should be done as best as it can be, and at the moment it really is not.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, regarding the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about explanations, I absolutely support him, as do two of the amendments in this group—Amendment 43, in which “explanation” is used, and Amendment 50, concerning giving notice “orally”. I am sure that noble Lords will understand the significance of that. Many people will take in something which is explained to them face to face and orally in a way which they might not if given a rather formal document to read.
I ask the Minister about the extent of what is meant by “confidential information”. There is a reference to what will become Section 42. As I read it, it is not confidential in the normal meaning of the word, but refers only to journalistic material, legally privileged or business material, as referred to when one follows through the cross-references, and not to personal material. Can she confirm that, because it very much affects what these clauses do? Can she also help the House with the relevance in her Amendment 47, in the proposed new subsection (7C), of the amount of confidential information likely to be stored on the device? Amount is not the same as significance.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, especially following the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I am conscious that I have no conception of what the world looks like through the eyes of my grandchildren. When I was their age there were three channels on television, which began at 4.40 in the afternoon with “Jackanory”. The world has changed considerably and, although I have tried to keep up with technology, professionally and personally, I am aware that I cannot see the world into which we are moving. We are not ahead of the game.
With the greatest respect, I look around this House and conclude that we are not the generation to be looking ahead and anticipating the world of communication, particularly through phones and so on. I am told by industry experts that what we have now is probably a couple of generations back from what we will have. I have lost track of Elon Musk and all the stuff going on in relation to space travel but, in framing such legislation, are we consulting the younger generations, who are well ahead of the rest of us on technology and communication potential? It is a simple question. I would not want to hand my phone over now, but I am sure that my grandchildren will have stuff on their phones which I would not even begin to understand. We need to be very careful.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we support all the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and if I had been on the ball I would have signed them. I also have Amendment 50 in this group.
The user of the device from which data is being extracted should be able to see what is happening whenever that is practical, and be reassured that only relevant data is being downloaded, as suggested in Amendment 43. As has just been discussed, many people’s lives are on their phone and their lives are run by what is on their phone, so to be separated from it can have major consequences. That is why Amendment 44 suggests that the device should be taken only if absolutely necessary; an explanation given as to why it must be taken, if it is; and that it is returned as soon as practical, and in any event, within 30 days.
Amendment 45, adding “strictly” to “necessary”, narrows the circumstances in which data can be extracted. Digital downloads should not be used if there are other means of obtaining the information—whether “reasonably practicable” or not. Anything that deters survivors from coming forward or progressing their complaint should be avoided at all costs. “Not reasonably practical” sounds as if digital downloading could be used if it were easier than the alternative in Amendment 46. Amendment 48 provides for an independent review of the need for digital downloading, carried out by a senior police officer at the request of the user, who may be concerned that it is not strictly necessary and proportionate. Amendment 51 requires that an explanation is provided as to why it is necessary, how long it will take and the availability of a review.
As I pointed out in Committee, the Bill requires the authorised person to give notice only in writing to the user as to what, why and how the information will be extracted, the user’s right to refuse and the consequences of such a refusal. This is only to the extent that the investigation or inquiry will not end merely because the user refuses. Will the Minister state on the record that this is different from such a refusal having no consequences? For example, the defence in a rape case—where consent is an issue—may claim that withholding such information has implications which the jury might be asked to consider.
Akin to the rights of a detained person at a police station, it is not sufficient simply to wave a piece of paper under the nose of the user, who may be unable to read or be too traumatised to take in what she is reading. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee have said, the authorised person should explain orally to the user and enter into a conversation to test her understanding to ensure that consent is informed and voluntary.
The government amendments attempt to address the concerns of my noble friend Lord Beith about confidential information. My noble friend Lady Hamwee was right: this should include confidential journalistic material and material subject to legal privilege, which was going to be dealt with by regulations. With the government amendments in this group, we appear to be inching forward on this, but concerns remain, as my noble friend explained. We support all the amendments in this group.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all those noble Lords who have taken part on this group. The key issue which we need the Minister to take away is that there is more to be done in this area. We are grateful to her and her Bill team for their engagement with us and for the extra protections which the Government brought forward in Committee. I particularly pay tribute to the Victims’ Commissioner and her office for their leadership on these protections and the changes for victims which we need.
My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, both raised crucial issues, particularly about the need for strict necessity and the importance of making sure that victims—who may be going through this process at a point of shock or extreme vulnerability—genuinely understand their rights.
Amendment 52A in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser returns to the issue of material held by third parties. It applies to material such as a victim’s school report or mental health records. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for their support on this issue in Committee.
The Government have accepted on the face of the Bill that extra protections are needed for victims where data are extracted from their phones. The next step is that the exact same protections must also apply where a victim’s privacy is being raided in any other area of their life.
These changes are being championed by the Victims’ Commissioner, with the support of the National Police Chiefs’ Council. They are vital for victims, for culture change and for the system as a whole. We need to get it right to give victims confidence, to stop unnecessary requests for information and to reduce the huge delays in investigations. I know the Minister recognises this issue. Will she commit to take it away and consult on the issue of third-party material with a view to bringing in protections?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I agree that this has been a very thoughtful debate. I hope that, at the end of this, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, will not find me guilty of “Baroness-splaining”. This is such an important issue. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, for young people, their mobile phones are their life and contain things that certainly their parents should not see, nor others either.
In Committee, I gave assurance that the Government were considering very carefully the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommendation to the effect that provisions regarding the extraction of confidential information from electronic devices should be set out in the Bill rather than left to regulations, as Clause 42 currently provides. In our response to the DPRRC, which we sent to the committee last week, we confirmed that we accept the recommendation. Amendments 47, 49 and 52 to 55 make the necessary changes to Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Bill to include provisions dealing with this issue.
These amendments are designed to ensure that additional safeguards will apply where an electronic device may contain confidential information, because authorised persons will be required to go through a separate assessment of the appropriateness of using the power where there is a risk that confidential information may be held on a device. To answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, confidential information for these purposes includes legally privileged, journalistic and other types of protected materials, but I think that is what she suspected.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, asked whether information extracted from a mobile phone would be disclosed to the defence. These provisions do not alter disclosure rules, which will continue to apply as now.
The amendments place an obligation on authorised persons to make a risk assessment, based on information that they have available, to decide how likely it is that they will come across confidential information on the device that they wish to examine. Having done so, they must turn their mind to the potential volume of confidential information held on the device and its potential relevance to the purposes set out in Clauses 36(2) and 40(2), for which the power can be used, in order to come to a view as to whether it is proportionate to use the power. This is intended to ensure particular consideration is given to the potential handling of inherently sensitive information. This will be reinforced by best practice guidance, to be set out in the code of practice under Clause 41. Authorised persons will be required to have regard to the code in exercising the powers under this chapter. We consider that this approach provides that balance between enabling extraction to go ahead in appropriate cases and safeguarding against improper access to confidential material.
Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the House will recall that substantial changes were made to these provisions in Committee to further strengthen the safeguards for device users. These changes have been warmly welcomed by the Victims’ Commissioner. We believe, and I think noble Lords alluded to this, that any further issues can and should be addressed through the code of practice—more on that later—which will provide authorised people with detailed guidance on the lawful use of these powers.
Amendments 43 and 44 would afford a device user the option of observing the extraction taking place, unless that is impracticable or inappropriate. I can see the appeal of that, but different authorised people will have different tools available to them to carry out extraction, and these may be held in parts of a police station or law enforcement premises where only members of staff can be present. It could also be held in third-party laboratories which are not equipped to host members of the public. We think that these restrictions will make this obligation impractical in many cases, and we do not think that an obligation to allow a device user to observe this process is workable.
Amendment 44 would also place a legal limit on the length of time that an authorised person can keep a device in their possession. Authorised persons already keep all devices for the minimum amount of time necessary, but the precise length of time is determined by a number of factors, and the officer to whom the individual gives their device gives an indication of how long this period will be. If for any reason this length of time changes, individuals are kept informed. I have highlighted in my notes that the rape review action plan makes clear our ambition to ensure that no victim is left without a phone for more than 24 hours.
Amendment 45 returns to a debate that we had in Committee about whether the necessity test in subsection (5)(c) of Clause 36 should use the language of “strict necessity”, as in the Data Protection Act, in these clauses. As I have said previously, the powers in Clauses 36 and 40 must be read alongside existing obligations under the Data Protection Act or, indeed, the UK GDPR. Looking at the requirements in more detail, Part 3 of the DPA 2018 contains specific provisions relating to processing personal data for a law enforcement purpose. The “law enforcement purposes” are defined, in Section 31 of that Act, as
“the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security.”
To process personal data lawfully under Part 3 of the Data Protection Act, it must either be with the consent of the data subject or strictly necessary for a law enforcement purpose. In the case of the latter, one of the conditions in Schedule 8 to the Act must also be met. For example, the processing must be necessary for the protection of someone’s vital interests or necessary for the safeguarding of children or individuals at risk. The draft code of practice makes clear that “strict necessity” is the standard that must be met when exercising these powers for a law enforcement purpose and that “consent” is not an appropriate lawful basis.
The UK GDPR provides the regime that must be complied with for all other data processing; that is to say, processing for a purpose other than a law enforcement purpose. The regime is likely to apply where the powers are being used for the purpose of locating a missing person, protecting a child or an at-risk adult from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm, or the investigation of death where there is no suspicion of criminal activity. It is not therefore appropriate to set one standard of data processing in these clauses where these different regimes apply. As I have previously indicated, the obligations under the DPA and the UK GDPR continue to apply, and we think that the code of practice is the appropriate tool to communicate these responsibilities to authorised persons.
Amendment 46 would remove the provision that allows for authorised persons to use these powers where other means of obtaining the information exist but it is not reasonably practical to use them. It is necessary that this provision remains, as there may be instances where alternative means are available, but they require excessive resource—for example, either time or costs. The draft code of practice makes clear that the authorised person must assess whether other means available would be unreasonable in the circumstances and that delay alone is not sufficient justification not to pursue an alternative method unless there is a real and immediate risk of harm.
Amendment 48 would create a formal process for an individual to request a review from a senior officer of the necessity and proportionality of using the powers. We agree that all individuals must be given all relevant details about any requests for personal information and have included the obligation to share these details in writing. The data processing notice used by the police includes details of how to challenge a request, but, in all cases, individuals should be asked to volunteer their device and agree to the extraction of information from it only as a last resort, and requests must be necessary and proportionate.
As part of the rape review action plan, Thames Valley Police has begun a pilot to introduce the ability for victims in rape cases to request a review when the police make a request for personal information during the investigation stage. This is not confined to requests for digital evidence. We will continue to engage with interest with colleagues in the NPCC and Ministry of Justice who are working with Thames Valley Police. Following the pilot, if appropriate, we can address this issue further in revisions to the code of practice.
Amendment 50 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would ensure that the matters set out in subsection (3) of Clause 38 are explained to a device user orally as well as in writing. The clause requires notice to be given in writing to ensure that this information is formally recorded and can be referred to at a later stage of an investigation or inquiry if needed. We think that the code of practice is the best place to provide that additional guidance to authorised persons on how best to communicate this information to an individual before they agree to the extraction of information.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. What a great team, and a model of brevity, clarity and compassion, if I may say so. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for his rhetorical prods, which highlighted why “strict necessity” should be the operable test here—and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for reiterating disclosure obligations and the nature of the abuse that has been taking place in this area for too long. He was the first to crystallise the intimate nature of the virtual world, which was echoed by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, among others—thus making it so important that the police explain not just this material and what is going to happen to it but what the process will be thereafter, including potentially court.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, ever succinctly and pithily, pointed to the Hobson’s choice with which too many complainants have been presented up to now, and I know that the Minister understands that. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, should never suggest that he has not been on the ball in relation to this group or any part of the Bill. He has been the most diligent of all the very senior retired police officers in your Lordships’ House on these matters. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for making the case so clearly in relation to third-party material; it will clearly need to be returned to in relation to the victims Bill. I am glad that the Minister does not want the police and CPS just to wait for that. It is about trying to improve things immediately; they have been too dilatory in this area for too long.
I shall not respond to each answer that the Minister so graciously offered, save to say that I am not totally persuaded. If anything, some of her answers actually pointed to the wisdom of these amendments. For example, she mentioned a number of times the principle of last resort before this material should be sought from a complainant. That is strict necessity—not the softer approach of necessity and proportionality, and I do not understand why that higher test should not be replicated. It is great that it is in data protection legislation, but why should it not, as a matter of good law and good governance, be in this legislation?
However, I shall not be churlish, because in both the tone and substance of her remarks, the Minister has been such a contrast on this issue with those who have sat there before her. While warmly accepting her invitation to meet with her later and the various organisations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(7A) Subsection (7B) applies if the authorised person thinks that, in exercising the power in subsection (1), there is a risk of obtaining confidential information.(7B) The authorised person must, to be satisfied that the exercise of the power is proportionate— (a) have regard to the matters in subsection (7C), and(b) be satisfied that—(i) there are no other means of obtaining the information sought by the authorised person which avoid that risk, or(ii) there are such other means, but it is not reasonably practicable to use them.(7C) The matters referred to in subsection (7B)(a) are—(a) the amount of confidential information likely to be stored on the device, and(b) the potential relevance of the confidential information to—(i) a purpose within subsection (2) for which the authorised person may exercise the power, or(ii) a purpose within subsection (2) of section 40 for which the authorised person may exercise the power in subsection (1) of that section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would, in circumstances where an electronic device may contain confidential information, require an authorised person to carry out the additional steps in new subsection (7B) of Clause 36 in order to be satisfied that the exercise of the power in clause 36(1) to extract information from the device is proportionate.
““confidential information” has the meaning given by section 42;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 30, line 13.
“(6A) Subsection (6B) applies if the authorised person thinks that, in exercising the power in subsection (1), there is a risk of obtaining confidential information. (6B) The authorised person must, to be satisfied that the exercise of the power is proportionate—(a) have regard to the matters in subsection (6C), and(b) be satisfied that—(i) there are no other means of obtaining the information sought by the authorised person which avoid that risk, or(ii) there are such other means, but it is not reasonably practicable to use them.(6C) The matters referred to in subsection (6B)(a) are—(a) the amount of confidential information likely to be stored on the device, and (b) the potential relevance of the confidential information to a purpose within subsection (2) or section 36(2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would, in circumstances where an electronic device may contain confidential information, require an authorised person to carry out the additional steps in new subsection (6B) of Clause 40 in order to be satisfied that the exercise of the power in Clause 40(1) to extract information from the device is proportionate.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 30, line 13 and page 35, line 17. It omits provision requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations about the exercise of the powers under Clauses 36 and 40 (extraction of information) in relation to confidential information.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 30, line 24.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 36, line 16.
Lord Garnier
“(1A) The occupier, a representative of the occupier or a constable may only make a request under subsection (1)(d) if they have ascertained from the local authority within whose area the land is situated—(a) that there is a suitable pitch for P’s caravan or caravans and P’s other vehicles and property on a relevant caravan site, or(b) that, within 48 hours of their receiving notice of P’s presence on the land, a suitable pitch for P’s caravan or caravans and P’s other vehicles and property will become available within a negotiated stopping site in the local authority’s area, andthat in either case P has been informed of the availability of such a site.(1B) If there are no relevant caravan sites, or there will not within 48 hours of their receiving notice of P’s presence on the land be a negotiated stopping site within the local authority’s area, and P remains on the land in question for more than 48 hours, the local authority must compensate the owner or occupier of the land for all loss and damage suffered by them as a consequence of P’s entering upon and remaining on the land. (1C) Where P remains on the land under subsection (1B), P does not acquire any right of possession as against the owner or occupier of the land.(1D) In subsections (1A) and (1B)—“caravan”, “caravan site”, “relevant caravan site”, “relevant site manager” and “registered social landlord” have the same meanings as in section 62A(6);“a negotiated stopping site” is a site in respect of which an agreement has been reached between the local authority within whose area the site is situated and the trespassers which allows them to stay temporarily on a particular piece of land which is not an official site, in return for which the trespassers agree to certain conditions relating to, but not limited to, behaviour, tidiness of the site, the length of stay and payment for water, refuse collection and other utilities.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would provide that a person only commits an offence where they are trespassing on land having been offered a suitable pitch at a caravan site or negotiated stopping site in the local authority’s area; and where they remain on the land because there are no other suitable sites, the landowner or lawful occupier are to be compensated for all loss and damage caused by their entering upon and remaining on the land.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be participating remotely in this debate.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I begin by explaining that I will not be pressing my amendment to a Division. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for prompting me—although she may not have realised this at the time—during the course of Committee, when we were debating other amendments in Part 4 dealing with unauthorised encampments. On that occasion, I explained that I thought there was an unfairness in the Bill in relation to the victims or respondents to criminal trespass—the tenant or landowning victims of trespass on the land; I know there are plenty of arguments about whether there should or should not be criminal trespass. I mentioned a particular example when I was a Member of Parliament some 25 years ago, in 1996 or 1997, when not only did a large group of travellers trespass on a constituent farmer’s land, but their dogs were troubling this farmer’s sheep. Some of them were killed by the dogs in question.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker—perfectly fairly, I think—made the point in that debate, in which I was seeking to place the burden of proof that an activity on a landowner’s or tenant’s land was being conducted unlawfully, on the trespasser who wished to assert that the occupier of the land was conducting an unlawful activity, which could have been any sort of activity. Essentially, I was seeking to persuade noble Lords that it was far more just for the invader of the land to demonstrate that what they were seeking to stop—for example, the growing of genetically modified crops—was unlawful, and that it should not be for the owner or occupier of the land who was carrying out a lawful farming activity to show that he was not conducting an unlawful activity.
That aspect of the debate in Committee is not particularly relevant to what we are doing now, save that it prompted the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, to draw my attention to her argument that, because local authorities have historically failed to provide any, or any adequate, official sites for travellers to park their vehicles and reside on, this problem of invading other people’s land will continue.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I am so glad to have the approbation of the noble Lords opposite, for whom I have the greatest respect—on their negotiated stopping site.
That is what I invite the House and the Minister to consider, and perhaps the Minister will respond in due course, saying why my idea is not quite as wonderful as I think it is.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am a patron of the Traveller Movement. I thank the Minister for reaching out to those of us interested in this issue and I am sorry that the change in date meant that I was unable to attend. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for her dedicated work in co-ordinating the efforts of those of us who remain very concerned about these clauses in the Bill.
In Committee, we had a full debate on how the clauses on authorised encampments are a breach of the human rights of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities to live a nomadic life. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, because he has tried to propose a compromise regarding stopping sites. It certainly merits listening to, and I hope the Minister will take account of it.
In my contribution today, I wish to focus on just one area. Clause 63 also creates the right for the police to confiscate a vehicle that may be an individual and their family’s main residence. That confiscation would have the most extraordinary consequences, giving the police very strong powers that they do not have in respect of other people’s principal residences. If the police were to confiscate a vehicle under this clause, families would not only become homeless, but because they would be deemed to have become intentionally homeless, there is a possibility that their children would be taken into care, especially if there was no appropriate emergency accommodation locally. By doing that, parents may also not be able to move on to their next planned place of work.
I support Amendment 55ZC from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which protects individuals by preventing police confiscating their vehicles if it would make the individual owner, and their family, homeless.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council could not be clearer. It said:
“We believe that criminalising unauthorised encampments is not acceptable. Complete criminalisation of trespass would likely lead to legal action in terms of incompatibility with regard to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010, most likely on the grounds of how could such an increase in powers be proportionate and reasonable when there are insufficient pitches and stopping places?”
In Committee, the Minister said that these clauses are not targeted at the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community, but it certainly looks that way, especially as the Government explicitly referenced Traveller caravans in the background briefing to the Queen’s Speech. The Government have also made it clear that they are not criminalising trespass more generally. Even if the outline of these proposals were in the Government’s manifesto, actions that target one particular community, infringing their human rights and giving the police powers that they have said repeatedly that they do not want, cannot be right. I hope that the Minister will rethink this deplorable legislation.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not raising my eyes to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, initially. Her remarks are well worth paying attention to.
I am flattered by the attribution of influence by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. I have taken a slightly different route, but his amendment is interesting. All the amendments in this group are aimed at resolving prejudice against and actual homelessness of the Gypsy and Traveller communities. They all deserve serious consideration. Amendment 57 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister and the cosignatories of my amendment would deal with the underlying social situation of these fellow citizens, in particular the non-arrival of the strategy initiated quite some time ago by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, when he was the very effective Minister responsible, and I think endorsed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
I will speak to Amendment 55ZB in my name and supported by a distinguished cross-party group to whom I express my gratitude. I will move it to a vote if its thrust is not accepted by the Government. I am also grateful to the Minister for the meeting she gave several of us last week, when she said that the provision of the sites for Gypsies and Travellers was a planning matter and an amendment that dealt with that was not for this Bill. Indeed, it is a planning matter, as the police said in their evidence to the consultation on the Bill, but the trouble is that the lack of sites and consequent vulnerability of Gypsies and Travellers to summary eviction is inexplicably linked. Despite the noble Baroness’s assurance at our meeting that she would consult DLUHC on a way forward, I have heard nothing further.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 55A, 55B and 56A. I also express support for amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and great appreciation for her enormous hard work on this issue over a very long period. I declare my position as a member of the APPG on Gypsies, Travellers and Roma.
Persecution of Gypsy and Roma people in the UK goes back a very long way to soon after they arrived as an established community on these shores. They were banished in 1531 and again in 1544. In 1655, an Edinburgh merchant was allowed by the Privy Council to transport a range of people including Egyptians, as Gypsies were then known, to Barbados and Jamaica. In 1715, nine women and men were, in the same manner, transported to Virginia. There is no evidence that any of these people had committed any crime.
We are quite a few centuries on from the history I am citing, yet somehow we find ourselves in a sadly familiar place, with a part of the law explicitly targeting people who been long subject to the prejudice, discrimination and the bigotry that the noble Baronesses, Lady Whitaker and Lady Brinton, referred to. Part 4 of this Bill has caused great distress, concern and fear among the people who risk being affected by it and a great outcry from our entire human rights community.
That is why I have tabled Amendments 55A, 55B and 56A, which would strike out all of Part 4 of the Bill. I cannot move in any other way at this point, even though I accept and will vote for the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, should she put it to a vote. It is my intention, however, to test the opinion of the House, because this is a moral point that cannot be allowed to simply drift by.
No one can claim to be unaware of these issues. Should it be new to any noble Lord, I point them to an article on openDemocracy by Luke Smith, an article in the Independent by Lisa Smith, and the submission from the Friends, Families and Travellers group to the government inquiry. I also point to the fact that George Monbiot has described Part 4 of the Bill as “legislative cleansing”.
At Second Reading, the Minister claimed that this was all about protecting communities from the distress and loss of amenity caused by unauthorised encampments. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to the police reaction to this, and I will expand a little on what she said. In the response to the government consultation in 2018, 75% of police responses said that current police powers were sufficient, and 85% of police responses did not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments. I am going to repeat the conclusion of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, because it must not be ignored:
“We believe that criminalising unauthorised encampments is not acceptable. Complete criminalisation of trespass would likely lead to legal action in terms of incompatibility with regards to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010, most likely on the grounds of how could such an increase in powers be proportionate and reasonable when there are insufficient pitches and stopping places?”
I must apologise to the House for being unable to attend Committee for this part of the policing Bill because I was at the COP 26 climate talks, and as the very small Green group we have to divide our resources as best we can. However, I thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb for her explanation and expression of my intent to do this at this stage. As my noble friend said then, these clauses are completely unacceptable, discriminatory and dangerous, and that is why I am making this move today.
Again at Second Reading, the Minister said that this was delivering on a manifesto commitment. I can imagine it being said that under the conventions of the House the Lords are not supposed to thwart things that are in an elected party’s manifesto—even when that manifesto won the backing of only 44% of voters. But what if something is simply morally wrong—is racist, and risks putting us on a potentially slippery slope to horrors that the world has seen before?
It also worth questioning the celebration of British values. If any noble Lords have not seen it already, I point them to the article by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in the Independent today, which addresses that very point. I also point them to the conclusions of the Joint Committee on Human Rights:
“Gypsies, Roma and Travellers would … be in the position of potentially committing a criminal offence without having done anything at all, merely having given the impression to another private citizen that they intended to do something. This is very dangerous territory, which risks creating offences whose elements could largely be based on the prejudice of the accuser, and, perhaps, the justice system.”
To really explain why I intend to test the opinion of your Lordships’ House—at least on Amendment 55A; I will see how that goes—I would point out that blowing a dog whistle does not just create a momentary disturbance. Blowing a dog whistle calls the pack together, and we know that in a pack behaviour is different—potentially more violent, dangerous and disastrous than people acting alone. The amendments, commendable as they are, do not silence the dog whistle. Having looked at history, I have to say to your Lordships’ House that I have to do what I can today to try to ensure that that whistle is not blown. It is my intention, therefore, to call a vote on Amendment 55A.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 57, which is in my name, those of the noble Lords, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Alton of Liverpool, and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, whose support I am very grateful for.
First, however, I express my support for other amendments in this group, in particular the one in the name of my noble friend Lady Whitaker, who, as has already been said, has been such a long-standing and doughty campaigner on these issues. I also wish to make clear my opposition to this part of the Bill, on the grounds of social justice and human rights, which, as we made clear last week, should not be subject to a process of so-called “gold-plating”. I will not, however, repeat the arguments that I made in Committee, and unfortunately I do not think, realistically, that we can excise these clauses, damaging as they are. I say that with apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who has made a very strong case for doing so.
As I warned the Minister in advance, the purpose of this amendment is not quite what it says on the tin, which reflects what the Public Bill Office considered to be in scope. The phrase “entrenched inequality” is taken from a June 2019 press statement for the launch by the then Communities Minister, Lord Bourne, of a national strategy to tackle the inequality experienced by the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. Thus, what this amendment seeks to do is facilitate a debate about what has happened to this much-needed and overdue strategy, and to push for some action on it. It is framed in the way that it is because Part 4 should not have effect until the strategy, which should address Part 4’s likely impact on entrenched inequality, has been published, with a report laid before Parliament for debate.
The announcement of the proposed strategy in June 2019 followed a blistering report from the Women and Equalities Select Committee. It concluded that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people have the worst outcomes of any ethnic group across a huge range of areas, including education, health, employment, criminal justice and hate crime—to which I would add housing, which it chose not to look at. The committee observed:
“While many inequalities have existed for a long time, there has been a persistent failure by both national and local policy-makers to tackle them in any sustained way.”
The committee deplored the lack of leadership shown by the relevant ministry and the failure to develop a cross-departmental strategy. It was also critical of the reliance on pilot projects that did not seem to go anywhere. In a letter to the then Minister, the committee welcomed the announcement of the proposed strategy as “a very positive step”, but noted the lack of detail. More than two years later we still await that detail, despite repeated ministerial assurances that they remain committed to a strategy to tackle the inequalities identified by the committee and others.
In Committee, I asked the Minister for an update and an assurance that the long-awaited details would be published before Report. The Minister responded that she understood that the department for levelling up, et cetera, was
“working closely with other government departments to progress the strategy, which will be published in due course.”—[Official Report, 3/11/21; col. 1333.]
She then predicted that I would roll my eyes at the phrase “in due course”—and how right she was. She assured noble Lords, however, that the Government remained firmly committed to the strategy’s delivery.
I am afraid that simply is not good enough, especially in the face of legislation that is widely predicted to entrench further the inequalities suffered by the GRT communities. I gave the Minister notice of the purpose behind this amendment in the hope that she might have been able to extract something more substantial than “We’re working on it” from the department for levelling up et cetera, and answer questions such as: what are the parameters of the proposed strategy? Will there be targets? When will it finally be published? Answers to such questions are the very least we—and, more importantly, members of the GRT communities—can expect at this stage. I hope the Minister will be able to provide some answers.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I declare my interests, first in my work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which has already been referred to today, secondly as chair of the Wythenshawe Community Housing Group, and lastly as deputy chair of the Church Commissioners for England, one of the largest owners of farmland in the country. I think I have almost as wide a range of interests as has this extraordinarily diverse and far-reaching Bill.
I am grateful to those noble Lords from across the House who have proposed and supported the amendments in this group and spoken to them so powerfully in this debate. Like others, I am also grateful to the Minister for generously taking time to engage with us last week.
In my short time so far as a Member of your Lordships’ House, I have become accustomed to Ministers telling us that they have sympathy for our position but that the present Bill is not the way to address the matters that concern us—for example, when we tried to look at safety in high buildings on the then Fire Safety Bill. I do not see why we cannot play the same card. We need a separate Bill, one that deals comprehensively with the needs as well as the obligations of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people—not simply legislation that offers fresh and very serious penalties for what may be rather minor infractions. The matters addressed in these clauses would surely be better dealt with in that more balanced context. That would allow Her Majesty’s Government to deliver on their manifesto commitment.
If that is asking too much, the penalties exacted for matters treated in this part of the Bill should at least be proportionate to the offences committed and not excessive. I draw your Lordships’ attention to the principle of lex talionis, set out in the Hebrew scriptures and most commonly referred to as “an eye for an eye”. This was intended never as an endorsement of physical mutilation but as a limit to how severe a sanction should be. It sets a maximum, not a minimum. Put bluntly, no penalty should exceed the seriousness of the offence.
I know from my housing association experience that there are many cases in which someone may inhabit their dwelling in ways that cause nuisance to their neighbours —the way they dispose or do not dispose of rubbish; playing loud music late at night; abusive language; sometimes even damage to neighbours’ properties—but I also know that there are many checks and balances before anyone can be removed from their home. Yet these clauses could allow for confiscation of somebody’s primary or only dwelling on the basis of a very low level of nuisance caused. Unless Amendment 55ZB in my name and those of other noble Lords is accepted, there will be no need to ensure that any alternative accommodation or site is, or rapidly can be made, available. There is some irony that we are debating powers to render families with no place to lay their heads, not even a stable, this close to Christmas. Surely we need to balance these provisions by a limitation on using them in such circumstances.
I know it is not the Minister’s intention to enact disproportionate penalties for minor infringements, so finally I ask her, as well as accepting our Amendment 57, to put on record in this debate that, before the Bill becomes law, suitable statutory guidance will be published to limit the exercise of these powers to that small minority of cases in which a very high threshold of wrongful behaviour has been reached; and, further, that reports on the exercise of these powers will be compiled and made available to your Lordships’ House at least annually, so that we can detect any tendency to abuse the powers that the Bill would enact.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and to support the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Whitaker, on Amendments 57 and 55ZB, to which I am happy to be a signatory along with noble Lords drawn from right across the House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, set out the arguments for Amendment 57 with her usual clarity. At the heart of her remarks is the compelling case for social justice and the upholding of human rights. Suffice it to say that when it comes to inequalities, this group of people—Gypsies, Roma and Travellers—are in a league of their own. That was the conclusion of the March 2019 report of the Women and Equalities Select Committee. I know the Minister has given a great deal of personal attention to this issue; like others, I put on record my gratitude to her. When she comes to reply, I wonder whether she can tell us what account was taken of that report in framing this legislation and what action was taken to develop the cross-departmental strategy it called for.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, noted the absence of any detail still. I simply reinforce her message that the Government should publish and allow a debate on the strategy before implementing Part 4, or at least give a clear commitment as to when the strategy will be published. No doubt Covid will be prayed in aid to justify the delay but, even allowing for Covid, more than two years is simply too long. After all, those same constraints did not prevent the department coming forward with this change of law—or, for that matter, this entirely new Act of Parliament.
I will say a few words in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who in her admirable way has pursued this issue over so long and has encouraged so many of us to join the all-party parliamentary group in which she plays such a leading role. She has rightly pointed to the absence of sites—a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. How we respond to that is surely about whether to criminalise or incentivise local authorities to do something about it.
The greatly missed Lord Avebury promoted the Caravan Sites Act 1968. As a young city councillor in Liverpool in 1973, I, along with others—some of whom are in the Chamber this evening—pressed for the city council to do something about that Act. We pushed for the opening of a permanent site for Travellers. It is situated in Oil Street, in Tara Park. The Act led to many new sites, but its repeal in 1994 disincentivised provision, and there are now some 1,696 households on the waiting list for permanent pitches in England, while the last funding round secured resources for just two transit sites.
The civilised answer is to make provision, not to introduce draconian, criminalising legislation based on some very dubious legal principles, which seem to me to run contrary to human rights obligations and our duties to contest bigotry and prejudice with solutions—points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s barometer of prejudice, 44% of those surveyed expressed hostile and openly negative feelings towards Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. We should beware of doing anything to reinforce such prejudice and the old tropes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, reminded us of where prejudice can lead. On 2 August each year, the day on which we recall the Roma genocide, I am always struck that on that very day in 1944 the Gypsy family camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, the German Nazi concentration camps in the then occupied Poland, was liquidated. It is sometimes suggested that, during the Holocaust, half a million Roma and Sinti perished. At the time of the liberation of Auschwitz, just four Roma remained alive.
In our generation, it is down to us to guard against prejudice, which—I know the Minister would agree—can so easily morph into something worse. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, is right to draw attention to the obvious and inevitable violation of human rights that will occur if this clause remains unamended. As the Bill stands, it both criminalises people and deprives them of their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires respect for their homes—a point the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made—and their private and family life, which by law includes respect for their traditional ways of life. As long ago as 2001, the ECHR ruled that there was
“a positive obligation on Contracting States by virtue of Article 8 to facilitate the Gypsy way of life.”
I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how this provision achieves that objective.
Since 1995 the UK has been a signatory to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Article 5 of which says:
“The Parties undertake to promote the conditions necessary for persons belonging to national minorities to maintain and develop their culture”.
It is impossible to see how this legislation honours that obligation.
Before Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, along with myself, published an article in the House magazine pointing out that the way of life lived by the Roma, the Gypsies and the Travellers stretches back half a millennium, long before the enactment of the Enclosure Acts and the agricultural revolution. In this Bill, we intend to overturn the practice of centuries and criminalise trespass and enable the police to seize vehicles, as we have heard, and homes. Imagine the impact on the children of these families as they watch their parents’ possessions sequestrated and their families evicted—and this could be in the very depths of winter.
These amendments point to rank discrimination and are an attack on a way of life. Adequate accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers is a better, more civilised and more humane way to proceed, rather than locking people into endless cycles of criminalisation and evictions. If this amendment is taken to a vote by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, I for one will certainly go into the Division Lobby to support her.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I first of all apologise that I was unable to be here for the Committee on this Bill because of the difficulties of the rail link from Salisbury, which Members will recall. I thank the Minister for making time available to discuss these amendments and this general area. I wish to speak specifically to Amendment 55ZB, which was so well proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who has done great work in this area, and Amendment 57, where, similarly, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, proposed it so effectively.
I oppose the provisions on the criminalisation of trespass and Part 4 in general. I do so for several very practical reasons, which I will deal with. First and foremost, it does not deal with the root of the problem: the massive undersupply of sites for Gypsy, Roma and Travellers. I recall this from when I was a Minister; one has only to see around the country the lack of supply of places to know that this is true. I anticipate that the Minister will probably say—because it will be in the brief—that there is a great supply of private places. That is true, but that is a bit like arguing that families on moderate income should be reassured by hotel places in London because there is always a suite available in the Ritz or the Savoy. It does not answer the basic point about the lack of local authority sites. Were they available, this problem would melt away like snow in springtime. That is my first basic point. I do not understand why an attempt has not been made first—before bringing this legislation forward—to deal with that planning aspect and bring legislation forward on that point, as other noble Lords have said.
The second basic point I want to come to is whether this will make any difference. We have heard from many noble Lords that the police are against this provision—they know very well that it will make no difference. People—victims, I would say—will be moved from site A to site B, then from site B to site C and so on, all the way through to site Z and then back again. It is pointless; it is fruitless; it is costly; it is divisive; it is draconian. We should drop it. It does not help the situation, and it will lead to the police being put in a difficult position in relation to legislation that they do not want. I join other Members in saying that there are many local authorities from across the political spectrum that have come forward with proposals. We have heard about Leeds, but it is true also of Fenland, in Cambridgeshire, which has come up with imaginative proposals for dealing with the shortage of sites. Local authorities should be incentivised across the country to deal with this deep-seated problem.
My third reason for opposing this legislation is perhaps at the root of my real objection, and that is that there is something dreadfully un-British about this. It seems to home in on a community that is, in many ways, the lost minority and lost in plain sight. We have heard reference to the committee on equalities, which presented a report, and what it said was reinforced by the race disparity audit, which was a great initiative undertaken by Theresa May and which led to the talk of this strategy. Indeed, there were meetings: taking it forward for education was Nadhim Zahawi, as a junior Minister, and for health, Jackie Doyle-Price; there were representatives from the Home Office, such as, if I am not mistaken, the then Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, and representatives from justice, pensions and so on. All committees were represented in taking this strategy for legislation forward. I wonder what has happened to that.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I am speaking in favour of Amendment 55ZB from the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, which would ensure that Gypsies and Travellers are not evicted from an unauthorised site unless they have refused to go to a suitable alternative site. I note the noble Baroness’s comments that, when she met with the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, she was told that the provision of sites for Gypsies and Travellers was a planning matter and that an amendment which dealt with it was not for this Bill.
On 4 November, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, in response to my question highlighting that only eight local authorities out of 68 in the south-east of England have identified a five-year supply of specific, deliverable sites for Gypsies and Travellers, responded that it is the responsibility of local planning authorities to make an assessment of the need for both permanent and transit sites and to identify sites in their local plans. The Government are of course correct that this is a planning matter, yet the evidence is clear that this issue has not been appropriately addressed by many local authorities.
This amendment provides some protection for the Gypsy and Traveller communities, as it stipulates that they cannot be forcibly evicted unless they have refused a suitable alternative site. While this Bill is not about planning, we cannot ignore the impact it is going to have, if passed, on nomadic communities at a time when there are too few suitable sites.
It is encouraging to hear that, in Leeds, there have been systems established and sites made available to address this issue. It is even more encouraging still to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, is taking steps to encourage these types of systems across the country.
This amendment would provide appropriate protection for Travellers and Gypsies, while also ensuring that, where a suitable alternative site is available, this cannot be refused. Further, it highlights why more must be done to encourage local authorities to provide suitable sites for Gypsies and Travellers.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I have a question for the Minister which is relevant to Amendment 55ZB, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. The noble Baroness will know that the offence which will be created by new Clause 63 contains a defence in subsection (6), at line 40 of page 59 of the Bill. The defence is that it is open to the Traveller to say that he or she had a “reasonable excuse” for not moving on when asked to. Does the noble Baroness accept that it would be open to the Traveller to say, “I have a reasonable excuse for not moving on; my reasonable excuse is that there is no suitable pitch in the local authority area to which I can go, and it is therefore completely unreasonable on the facts of my case to expect me to move on”? Does the noble Baroness accept that it would be open to the Traveller to present that defence? It is certainly the defence I would advise the Traveller to use, were I representing him or her. If the noble Baroness accepts that that defence in principle would be open to the Traveller, I respectfully suggest that much of the force of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, is reduced, because there is a balance in this provision.
I make one other point: I do not myself find it particularly helpful when we are debating these difficult issues—and they are difficult issues—relating to a balance between competing interests for noble Lords to refer to Auschwitz. Let us be proportionate and reasonable about these issues. We have here a difficult question of the rights and interests of the Traveller and the rights and interests of the occupier or owner of land. I remind noble Lords that this criminal offence applies only if it can be shown that the occupation of the land by the Traveller is causing “significant damage”, “significant disruption” or “significant distress”. I understand the concerns, but let us keep a sense of balance and recognise, if I am right in my understanding of subsection (6), that there is a defence open to the Traveller who can show that they have a reasonable excuse—which, so far as I can see, would cover the absence of suitable pitches in the area.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I support this group of important amendments, which seek to bring some sort of equality into the Bill when dealing with the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, which is significantly absent from the Bill as it stands.
On Friday, the most reverend Primate led a debate on the challenges to freedom of speech and the role of upholding freedom of speech. He said in his remarks that one of the threats to freedom of speech is the “dehumanisation” of those with whom we disagree:
“We must be alert to how our habits of communication can stifle our creative imagination—how they might make us see others as somehow less than fully human.”—[Official Report, 10/12/21; col. 2109.]
While this section of the Bill is not about freedom of speech, it is certainly about the loss of freedom to roam.
In Committee, we heard speeches from some quarters which made assumptions about the character and lawfulness of the Travelling community, without evidence being provided to substantiate the allegations. All the amendments in this group deal with Part 4 of the Bill, which seeks to demonise and terrorise the Travelling community. I support Amendment 55ZB and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on her contribution.
The Travelling community is often portrayed as being less than fully human. It is true that their way of life is very different from that of those in this Chamber, but they are human, and they have the right to a roof over their heads, to educate their children and to have access to healthcare. This can be achieved only when they have somewhere to stop with their caravans. The Minister has rightly said that the provision of sites is a local authority matter and dealt with through the planning process, but she is reluctant to ensure that local authorities step up and fulfil this role.
As a vice-president of the LGA, I receive a regular copy of the Local Government First periodical. In the latest edition, there are two articles on Gypsies and Travellers. The first is from Sarah Mann, the director of Friends, Families and Travellers, about countering inequalities. GRT communities are known to face some of the poorest life outcomes across multiple indicators among the UK population. FFT provides local government with training on cultural awareness to provide more inclusive services, and this has resulted in the provision of more transit and permanent sites in certain areas. The second article was from Boris Worrall, chief executive of Rooftop Housing Group, which provides high-quality accommodation solutions to the Travelling community. He writes that the evidence shows that
“where high-quality sites are provided for the … (GRT) communities, and managed effectively, there is a wealth of evidence about better outcomes for residents, positive community relations and the avoidance of taxpayer costs.”
There are solutions out there to what some sections of our community see as the problem of GRT. It is part of the role of government to promote these to the benefit of all. The draconian measures in this Bill are not the answer and are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. My friend Lord Avebury, had he been here, would have had much to say on this matter.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, there is a lot of force in what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said about reasonable excuse. There is a problem, however, in that one would not know that one had a reasonable excuse until one had been charged with the offence. The advantage of the amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and others is that it achieves certainty and intercepts the risk of being brought to court to have one’s reasonable excuse determined. Although I tend to agree with what the noble Lord said, it comes too late in the process, and the safest and most secure way of dealing with it is to intercept the process at the beginning, which is exactly what the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, seeks to do.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, there are two problems here. Because of the behaviour of the lawless few, all Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities are being stereotyped as troublemakers. The new law creates offences when people trespass on land with vehicles where, among other things,
“it is likely that significant damage or significant disruption would be caused”,
and, again, where
“significant distress … is likely to be caused”.
All GRT people are likely to be criminalised by these new offences because people’s prejudices will result in them anticipating damage, disruption or distress, despite no previous experience of the GRT people concerned, or any other evidence—just their own prejudice. The second problem is that there is no option for many GRT people other than to trespass on land because local authorities do not, and do not want to, provide authorised pitches. Imagine the reaction of motorists if there were no local car parks and double-yellow lines on every road? That is the equivalent of what GRT people face.
That is the reason for these amendments. In the absence of removing the whole of Part 4 from the Bill, we will vote with the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, should she divide the House. At the very least, the police should not be allowed to seize caravans when they are peoples’ homes and the statutory duty on local authorities to provide authorised sites should be reinstated. That is the purpose of my Amendments 55ZC and 55AA. These may be planning issues, but the clerks have ruled that these amendments are within scope.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
First, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Whitaker on her amendment and on all the work that she and many others have done over a considerable period on the issue we are discussing. I express our support for the amendment, on which her co-signatories have also spoken to great effect. The Caravan Sites Act 1968 laid down a statutory duty to establish authorised sites with funding from central government, but unfortunately the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 repealed this provision, since when there have been fewer than three authorised sites built in England on average every year. We are now faced with a Bill under which people on unauthorised encampments who do not cause damage, disruption or distress can commit the new offence of
“residing on land without consent”.
I say that because the Bill provides that the offence can be triggered when a person is considered “likely” to cause damage, or that significant distress is “likely” to be caused by their being there.
As has been said, it appears that the police do not support these powers: they say that site provision is the issue. My noble friend’s amendment is, in my view, very moderate. It does not remove the powers but adds the importance of site provision and negotiated stopping places into the Bill. Deputy Chief Constable Janette McCormick from the National Police Chiefs’ Council told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that
“the issue of unauthorised encampments is a planning issue and is an accommodation issue … we as the police are not seeking any additional legislation to deal with that”.
She also said of authorised sites that
“where we have an increasing number of sites, we have a direct correlation with a reducing number of unauthorised encampments.”
In the 2018 consultation on these powers, the National Police Chiefs’ Council said:
“Trespass is a civil offence and our view is that it should remain so ... The NPCC position has been—and remains—that no new criminal trespass offence is required. The co-ordinated use of the powers already available under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows for a proportionate response to encampments based on the behaviour of the trespassers.”
In evidence to the Commons Public Bill Committee, the National Police Chiefs’ Council said that it
“strongly believes that the fundamental problem is insufficient provision of sites for Gypsy Travellers to occupy, and that that causes the relatively small percentage of unlawful encampments, which obviously create real challenges for the people who are responsible for that land and for those living around.”—[Official Report, Commons, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Committee, 18/5/21; col. 15.]
It also raised concerns about police resources and the police being drawn into this issue. We seem to be in a position with the Bill where the Government are not accepting the advice of the police, but are pulling in extra police resources from overstretched forces and skirting the issue that is really at the heart of this, which is site provision, which our police and local authorities advise is the thing that will actually make the difference.
Let me make it clear, as others have done, that damaging and harmful behaviour is totally unacceptable, and that landlords and local communities need protection and police support where it happens. It is already a criminal offence for a person to fail to leave land where the police direct them to, when their behaviour has caused damage to land or property or been abusive or threatening. Presumably, that is why the police say that they already have the powers that they need, based on behaviour.
As I said at the beginning, my noble friend Lady Whitaker’s amendment is very moderate. It does not oppose the powers and will not remove the powers from the Bill but would simply add a need to look at the issue of site provision and the successful model of negotiated stopping places. Let us be clear that it provides that the powers under this section can be used only where there is a suitable local pitch for people to be moved on to or a negotiated stopping site can be arranged within 48 hours. It defines a negotiated stopping site as a location temporarily agreed on with the local authority where people can stay, subject to conditions including
“behaviour … length of stay and payment for water … and other utilities.”
It thus specifically deals with the issue, raised repeatedly by the Government, where some people may refuse to use sites that are available.
The cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights said that
“the Government should not use the criminal law to address what is essentially a planning issue”.
I am sure all noble Lords are waiting to hear the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as to what is “a reasonable excuse”. If the Government were to accept my noble friend Lady Whitaker’s amendment, far from weakening the Bill, it would give this part of the Bill a significantly greater effect in reducing the number and impact of unauthorised encampments. I hope the Government will be prepared to move on this issue.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I waited because I wanted to hear which amendments our Front-Bench speakers were supporting. I made my views clear in our previous debate on this issue. I was a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Gypsies, Travellers and Roma and I no longer am, because in my view the behaviour of some Travellers—I stress “some Travellers”—was not being publicly condemned. I used the phrase “the 2R formula”: I will absolutely continue to defend the rights of Travellers, but along with those rights, in our society, there also comes the responsibility to behave in a reasonable way.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Whitaker on her amendment, because at least there is an acknowledgement in it that there are problems with behaviour, and we should recognise that. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his contribution about adopting a proportionate response to this. This is not about dehumanising Gypsies, Roma and Travellers; it is not about taking us back to Auschwitz, and I say that as a non-practising Jew, so I hope my contribution will be taken in this light. There are, unfortunately, real examples of some Travellers behaving in ways that are totally unacceptable. Some, unfortunately, have been associated with modern slavery. These are cases that have been proven. Others seem to think that it is perfectly reasonable to go around collecting building waste, or other waste, and saying it will be disposed of properly when it will not—it will be dumped. We had this on our own village green.
When somebody says that people are opposed to Travellers, they mean that they are opposed to the unreasonable behaviour of some Travellers. That is what causes a lot of it. Of course there are examples of people who are prejudiced, but we should not generalise on this issue. I have some sympathy for my noble friend Lady Whitaker’s amendment and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, who has genuinely tried to find a way forward on this.
I thank the Minister; we had a useful meeting, and I suggested to her that one thing that could be done is to set up local liaison committees—they may exist already—which would involve representatives of Travellers, residents and local authorities. I have not tried to define specifically what they would be but there certainly needs to be more contact and communication between the groups. It would be useful if the Minister could give some examples of what she considers best practice around the country; I believe some examples have been usefully quoted.
A minority of Travellers behave in ways that are unacceptable to communities. If that behaviour could be stopped or condemned, I think there would be a totally different attitude within communities. It is about proportion, about getting the balance right. Have the Government got it absolutely right? I am not sure—I am waiting to hear the Minister’s response—but polarising the debate in this House as some have done by saying that it is all based on people’s innate prejudice and discrimination against Travellers does not help.
There is a genuine problem, and it may be that the Government’s solution is not absolutely right. I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick; I might have known that he would put his legal finger on it when he asked whether, if someone was behaving reasonably and gave an excuse that there was no other stopping place, that would be considered a reasonable response in the circumstances.
I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I hope my noble friends will recognise that although I have not entered this debate with the most popular view, I have tried to show that I do not discriminate against Gypsies, Roma and Travellers—far from it. I continue to want to support their rights, but on the basis that they recognise that they too have responsibilities.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in what has been quite a wide-ranging debate on Part 4 of the Bill. Part 4 delivers on a clear manifesto commitment to tackle the harms caused by unauthorised encampments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his comments, and agree that equating the measures in this Bill with the atrocities committed in Nazi Germany is, quite frankly, disgraceful. I will not take an intervention until I have finished my point. Any noble Lord who thinks that I would stand at this Dispatch Box and promote anything that had even a sniff of that is quite wrong. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I thank the Minister. I hope she will read Hansard carefully in the morning. She will see that I did not equate this Bill with what happened in that period. I said that, when prejudice is inflamed, it can morph into terrible things; historically, we know that to be true. That is all that I said—I did not say that that is what the Government are doing. I do not like what the Government are doing in Part 4. I support the amendment, and I gave very good reasons for that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is interesting that the noble Lord thinks that I was referring to him. I said that the comments of noble Lords who equated this with the atrocities of Nazi Germany were, quite frankly, disgraceful. I did not name him. It is interesting that he thinks it might have been him to whom I was referring.
We have brought forward the measures in Part 4 because we understand the challenges that many locations across the country face when individuals cause significant damage, disruption or distress to communities, businesses and landowners. It is important to remember why we are introducing a new offence: to tackle individuals who cause significant harm. This could include unauthorised encampments within urban areas set up in local parks, car parks or on local sports fields. It could include fly-camping which is a huge problem within national parks and our natural beauty spots, where people park cars, campervans or motorhomes on land without permission and damage the land.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness for answering my earlier question. As I understood her answer, it was that there can be no reasonable excuse for causing significant damage or significant disruption. I point out to her that the defence under new subsection (6) is that the defendant would have a defence if they have
“a reasonable excuse for … failing to comply as soon as reasonably practicable with the request”
to leave. It has nothing to do with whether they have caused disruption, distress or damage; they have an absolute defence if there is a reasonable excuse for not leaving the land when asked to do so. That is why I put to her that, surely, it could be a reasonable excuse that there is nowhere else they can go. Would she like to reflect on that?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As the noble Lord probably knows, that will be a determination for the courts to make.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am simply anxious that the matter is not left on the basis that the Minister put it, because I respectfully suggest that that is not right.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Perhaps we could discuss this further if that is amenable to the noble Lord, but I accept his point that it is not right to just leave it like that. In determining what is a reasonable excuse, it would be for the police and the courts to determine whether the excuse was reasonable.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, 15 noble Lords have spoken in this debate. Most of them have concentrated on amendments other than mine, which is hardly surprising. Three broad points have emerged from this debate which I hope are uncontroversial.
First, there is an undersupply of official local authority Traveller sites. Regardless of quite how far along the pendulum one places this, that must be a reason why there is a high incidence of trespass. The Government say this is a problem and I am sure others do as well, but the more interesting question is, what do we do about it? If I may say so with the greatest of respect to my noble friend, this is not just a planning matter. It is a wider public policy issue, and this Bill turns it into a criminal justice matter. It is not an answer to complain that noble Lords are conflating unlawful occupation and damage. The two may be linked; none the less, they need to be thought about with some degree of care and not by sloganising.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, reminded us about Clause 63(6)(a) and (b), which provide for the reasonable excuse defence. I happen to agree with him, and his recent intervention on my noble friend saved me from making a speech of an additional 10 minutes—for which there is much relief. It strikes me that Clause 63(6) provides a second incentive to local authorities to get on and provide more official sites. The first incentive is the compensatory damages which I expect them to pay. Secondly, if they, the police or the CPS seek to rely on the criminal offences described in this part of the Bill, and there are no sites and therefore it is a reasonable excuse, surely, we come back to the fact that there is an undersupply of official sites so please, let us do something about it. I entirely take on board what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said about the point at which it is realised that this is a good defence. It is not a question of me being righter and you being wronger. It is a question of sorting out the problem sensibly, pragmatically and economically, in a way which does not cause additional, prolonged and unnecessary distress to local residents such as the neighbours of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, or to the families and children within the Travelling community. It is not impossible. It just requires political will.
I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. What others do with theirs is a matter for them.
Baroness Whitaker
“(1A) The occupier, a representative of the occupier or a constable may only make a request under subsection (1)(d) if they have ascertained from the local authority within whose area the land is situated—(a) that there is a suitable pitch for P’s caravan or caravans and P’s other vehicles and property on a relevant caravan site, or(b) that, within 48 hours of their receiving notice of P’s presence on the land, a suitable pitch for P’s caravan or caravans and P’s other vehicles and property will become available within a negotiated stopping site in the local authority’s area.(1B) A “negotiated stopping site” is a site in respect of which an agreement has been reached between the local authority within whose area the site is situated and the trespassers which allows them to stay temporarily on a particular piece of land which is not an official site, in return for which the trespassers agree to certain conditions relating to, but not limited to, behaviour, tidiness of the site, the length of stay and payment for water, refuse collection and other utilities.”
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently in this debate. It is of great importance to some very beleaguered communities. I too note the widespread and authoritative emphasis on enabling local authorities to provide enough sites. I understand that the Minister is bound to follow the instruction to implement a manifesto commitment and stick to the disproportionality of Clause 63, but I think we need to strike a better balance. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
There being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order 55, which provides that no proposal to amend a Bill in the form in which it is before the House shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such an amendment, I declare the amendment disagreed to.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as I indicated in the previous discussion, I feel that this is a moral issue on which a line has to be drawn. I will not rehearse all the debates we had previously, but I want to pick up one point from the Minister, who said that Part 4 does not target the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. The Equality and Human Rights Commission said in its response to the government consultation that this is indirect discrimination that cannot be justified. It was of the opinion that this criminalisation of trespass would breach the public sector equality duty. No equality statements have been issued in regard to the proposed new offence in Clause 63, so I would like to test the opinion of the House. It will be up to every individual to judge according to their conscience. I beg to move.
“(6) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of any guidance or revised guidance published under subsection (5).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay any guidance published under the section before Parliament.
Universal Credit (Exceptions to the Requirement not to be receiving Education) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
Lord Storey
That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Universal Credit (Exceptions to the Requirement not to be receiving Education) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/1224), laid before the House on 4 November, be annulled because (1) they will remove vital support for disabled young people, and (2) Her Majesty’s Government have not sufficiently assessed the impact the regulations will have.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, disabled young people need all the support and help that our society can give them. Those disabled young people who have become students—who are learning and want to progress in education and who want to go to college and university—should not be facing barriers. They should not be facing checks and counterchecks, making it as difficult as possible for them to get the financial support that they need. It strikes me as strange that we hear from the Government so many times that there should be no barriers to learning or supporting young people, when these very young people have barrier after barrier against them.
Tomorrow, sadly, the new regulations come into being, and that will have dire consequences for disabled people in education, as they will be prevented from claiming crucial universal credit. The new regulations will prevent disabled people who are receiving education accessing a universal credit claim if they have not established what is called a “limited capacity for work” status before they started receiving education. This effectively means that many disabled people will be unable to receive universal credit if they are in education, which creates the risk that certain groups of young people will be unable to finish their education, limiting their employment opportunities in future.
Of course, this is not the first time that the Department for Work and Pensions has misinterpreted the needs of disabled people. Disability Rights UK stated that 30,000 disabled students could have been affected by the DWP’s misunderstanding of the law which prevented thousands of disabled students from claiming benefits essential for their cost of living in the past seven years. Testimony of numerous disabled students has described cases where education has been put beyond their reach.
In 2013, around 8.6% of higher education students were disabled, yet in an NUS survey from that year, 59% of disabled respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they had been worried about not having enough money to meet basic living expenses, compared to 47% of non-disabled respondents. Only 33% agreed or strongly agreed that they were able to concentrate on their studies without worrying about finances, compared to 45% of non-disabled students, and 55% have already seriously considered leaving their course, compared with 35% of non-disabled respondents. Among those, 54% reported that it was because of financial problems, 36% because of a health problem, and only 20% that it was because of a disability issue.
Although this data is from 2013, it shows important patterns in the difficulties that disabled students have faced in the past and continue to face today in financing their studies. The current proposed changes will only exacerbate obstacles faced by disabled students in accessing high-quality education, forcing certain disabled students to choose between staying in education, but without being able to access crucial resources in sustaining themselves, and dropping out altogether, which will create immeasurable strain on their current well-being as well as future prospects. Overall, cutting off access to universal credit for many disabled students who are currently in education would create additional obstacles and severely impede the Government’s objective of empowering and supporting disabled people across the UK.
Even before the regulations come into force tomorrow, the current rules make it difficult for disabled people in education to claim universal credit, and the new rules will restrict access even further. Students are caught in an impossible situation; they need a work capability assessment to get a “limited capacity for work” status, but the main way in which to access that assessment is by starting a claim for universal credit, and they need “limited capacity for work” status before they can get universal credit. It is not clear how refusing disabled people means-tested support through universal credit, because they do not have “limited capacity for work” status before receiving education, would support them in achieving their potential or starting, staying and succeeding in employment.
This is not an area of strength for me, and I have struggled to understand many of the issues—so God help those poor students who are trying to work their way through this. In reality, the regulations will force many young disabled people who cannot go without financial support from universal credit to drop out of education altogether. What the Government are doing is, frankly, appalling: disabled students already face so many barriers to engaging fully in education, and now the Government plan to callously rip away the additional support offered by universal credit. This truly is penny-pinching of the worst kind. As Child Poverty Action Group has warned, this change in the rules will close off the only route for young disabled learners, meaning that many could be forced out of education altogether. We need to support and empower everyone living with a disability to achieve their full potential, not pull the rug out from underneath them. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, during this year, I have been chairing the Youth Unemployment Committee. The day after the publication of our report Skills for Every Young Person a couple of weeks ago, I received some comments on the sections relating to disabled young adults concerning the impact of this statutory instrument on the report’s objectives. The context of our report was that, while there was a range of mechanisms in place to support young people with additional needs, the recent Plan for Jobs had no targeted support for people with disabilities. We said that, as part of their forthcoming consultation on strengthening pathways to employment for disabled people, the Government should consider grant funding for a jobs guarantee for unemployed disabled young people.
Meanwhile, quite separately, this statutory instrument has been tabled, and it is very worrying because it is not a minor change. The assessment for a limited capability for work determination now must be made before the young person becomes a student. Only then are they entitled to universal credit. That, as my noble friend Lord Storey has made clear, is a significant change. I hope that the Government will reflect on how this position has been reached, not least because this proposed change in benefit entitlement has not been subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
Those affected are, first, young disabled people aged 16 to 19 and those with long-term health conditions who previously would have been able to claim universal credit in their own right. Secondly, it affects those young disabled people or those with long-term health conditions who are in advanced education: typically 18 to 23 year-olds attending university. Thirdly, it affects those who continue in non-advanced education but who cannot qualify for help because of their age. There has been no published impact assessment, but because individual circumstances can be complex, there might be a wide variety of impacts that should have been properly analysed and still should be, and the information shared. I regret very much that this has not been done. As my noble friend Lord Storey said, young disabled people face multiple barriers, and these regulations should not be adding to them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, this important Motion really deserves attention: the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Shipley, have set out the case very clearly. The Government often express great concern about productivity and unemployment, and stress their belief in the importance of education. Of course, we talk very often in your Lordships’ House about the skills shortage and how we have to fill it in; but what we have here is a change carried forward, as has been outlined, in an utterly inappropriate way. It will deprive people—mostly young people—who are seeking to make the most of their skills, talents and abilities of the means to move forward; they will be put in a position where that is simply no longer possible. It is worth thinking about how incredibly dispiriting that is for each individual affected. They will find themselves in this situation when they thought they were doing everything right—everything that society had been telling them that they were supposed to be doing—and now face the disappointment of their parents and families, who see this opportunity being snatched away.
I have put this in the Government’s own terms: what will this do for the economy and for GDP? However, I would also put it into broader, green terms. We face economic, social, environmental, political and educational crises. We have a huge shortage of human resources capable of solving all those problems that are facing us. We need to ensure that every individual in our society is allowed to develop to their full potential.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for introducing his Motion and all noble Lords who have spoken. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that while this may not be a large debate, with my help it may be slightly longer than it might otherwise have been. The reason for that is, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, that this is a very complicated area. I want to set out what I think has got us to this point and invite the Minister to correct me if I am wrong, because it is important that we get that down on the record. I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which noted that the concept behind these regulations had been “poorly explained” in the first version of the Explanatory Memorandum, and asked the DWP to reissue it. That has helped us.
The rules specify that, to claim universal credit, there is a broad condition that you must not be receiving education—but Regulation 14 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 says that there are some exceptions. They include young people living independently doing A-levels or the like; those who are responsible for kids; and some disabled people who get attendance allowance, disability allowance or PIP and have limited capacity for work. All Regulation 14 does is remove the blanket requirement that you must not be in education to get universal credit. It does not stop people in those groups from facing conditionality, but disabled people in that third category—with limited capability for work—were able to get universal credit while studying.
However, there was a judicial review last year, instigated by two disabled students on the grounds that, before rejecting their claims for universal credit, the DWP should have determined whether they had limited capability for work. In the end, the Government did not defend the claim. What they did instead was to introduce the Universal Credit (Exceptions to the Requirement not to be receiving Education) (Amendment) Regulations 2020. Those regulations amended the 2013 regulations so that a disabled student would be eligible for universal credit only if they were classed as having limited capability for work before they started education; or if they were already in education before they made a claim for universal credit. What is happening here is that the DWP now says that those regulations were deficient because they permitted a workaround: namely, that if a disabled student makes an application for new-style ESA—contribution-based employment and support allowance—and supply medical evidence, they will automatically be referred for a work capability assessment, which could lead to them being classed as having limited capability for work. They would then be entitled to claim universal credit. The Government therefore brought forward these regulations to stop that workaround as well.
I have some questions. First, will the Minister say whether that is an accurate description of where we are? He can nod if he wishes. I can see him nodding: that might be a gesture of trust on his part, but I definitely note his nodding. I am sure the cavalry will arrive to reverse that nod should it prove to be an ambitious and premature nod.
Secondly, can we establish the size of the problem we are dealing with in this workaround? How many such cases were there last year or in the latest period for which figures are available? I tried to find this out myself, but the data do not seem to record student status. However, using age as a proxy—it is not a bad proxy for this population—I went poking around on the data on Stat-Xplore, and I think that the answer is that there are very few cases indeed. If I read it correctly, in the quarter to May, there were only 39 people aged 21 or under in the support group of new-style ESA. Can the Minister say if that seems right?
Thirdly, what is the effect of this latest tightening? If I have understood it aright, these latest regulations mean that no disabled student will be entitled to claim universal credit unless they have been deemed to have limited capability for work before they start their course of education. Even someone in that tiny category—someone who claimed new-style ESA and was classed as having limited capability for work—would be entitled to universal credit only if that happened before they started their course.
What will that mean? Like other noble Lords, I have had representations, particularly about the position of young disabled people. The Child Poverty Action Group says that the current workaround is used by some young people who are over 19 but still in basic education. Their parents can get support and universal credit for them, but that stops at the September following their 19th birthday. If this workaround is removed, the only option for these young disabled people would be to apply for universal credit in their own right. There is then a risk that they would not be allowed to carry on with their studies, unless their work coach decides that carrying on studying, even in basic education, is their best chance of getting a job.
The charity Contact says that some young people who have reached the September after their 19th birthday and are on non-traditional courses, such as life skills, may be able to convince their work coach to treat them as though they are not receiving education and thus get universal credit. However, Contact is worried that those who have not reached the milestone of the September after their 19th birthday are now at risk of being shut out of universal credit altogether. Can the Minister say what will happen to them?
I will give one brief example from Contact of a woman called Doreen, who said:
“Our grandson is 21 and lives with us, his grandparents. Our grandson is in full time education at an autism specialized college with an EHC plan. He’s been getting Universal Credit since he was 17. That’s his financial income to enable him to stay in full time education to get the qualifications he needs for possible future employment. Without Universal Credit he wouldn’t have been able to continue his education at his specialist college.”
Can the Minister say what would happen to someone in those circumstances?
CPAG warns that the regulations could stop disabled people moving from college or school to university. It takes four months on average to get a work capability assessment, so how could people do that before starting university? Or is the intention that they should not, because they should rely on loans and grants?
Finally, if the Government are legislating again simply to deliver on the original policy intention of the 2013 regulations, which they say they are, why has it taken eight years, judicial review and three sets of legislation to get to that point? How confident is the Minister that we will not be back with a fourth set of regulations next year? There is of course another JR making its way through the system at the moment.
This is the latest iteration of an issue that crops up often, most recently during the passage of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, which a number of us were involved with. It is a tension between the DWP and DfE as to who supports certain categories of people going through education. Here, the DWP is claiming that disabled students are just like any other students and that, if they want to go into education, they should get grants, loans and bursaries like any other student.
However, as CPAG points out, many students now have to work to supplement any grants or loans they receive to get through their education. Many disabled students would find it much less easy to work alongside their course. Treating people the same does not always leave us in the best position.
Given the state of the disability employment gap, surely we all want to do everything we can to help disabled people get the education they need to get on and get a job in the future. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is absolutely right: we should invest in all our people to enable them to fulfil their potential.
I think the Minister is unlikely to accept the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, given that it is a fatal Motion and the convention in this House is that we do not support Motions that will annul regulations. However, it is crucial that he looks carefully at the issues facing disabled students. Will the Government agree to review all the support provided to them, to see whether it really is possible for them to move on to education and develop as they should? I look forward to his reply.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, we have heard from noble Lords today that a great injustice is about to be perpetrated on young people with disabilities. As we have heard, many young people still in education will be ineligible for universal credit unless they have had a work assessment and been assessed as having limited capability for work
“before they started receiving education”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has explained the background to this sad state of affairs.
Disability Rights says:
“The new regulations are really bad news for disabled students … Unfortunately they put a legal stamp on what has been the actual operational practice of the DWP that places them in a Catch 22 position.”
The position has been to reject a universal credit claim made by a full-time disabled student who was not previously in receipt of educational support allowance
“on the grounds that they have not been determined to have a LCW”,
or limited capability for work, and then for
“the Universal Credit section to refuse to arrange a work capability assessment to determine if they have a LCW … Even though they may clearly meet the Universal Credit means test if found to have a LCW.”
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, explained, the way round this is for the disabled student to make a claim for contribution based on new-style ESA, for which they will not meet the national insurance contributions entitlement conditions, having not been in employment and therefore not contributing.
Despite this, the student will get a work capability assessment but, as Disability Rights explains only
“if a LCW decision is made can any means tested Universal Credit entitlement be awarded.”
It continues:
“This torturous route is absurd. Worse, it undoubtedly has the effect of deterring Universal Credit claims by some disabled students. Some will not know to claim NSESA ‘workaround’ … and some may even not pursue their higher education course.”
This is a significant change from the previous system in which disabled people in receipt of disability living allowance or personal independence payments were automatically determined as having limited capability for work.
Furthermore, as others have said, these new regulations were not subject to review by the Social Security Advisory Committee or any equality impact assessment before being issued. As Disability Rights notes, they
“cast doubt on the Government’s commitment to ensure disabled people’s access to education. In addition, they will in turn cast doubt as to the Government’s commitment to increase the number of disabled people in employment.”
It is worth reminding ourselves of extracts from Shaping Future Support: The Health and Disability Green Paper, in which the Government say:
“Our first priority is to support disabled people and people with health conditions to live independently and achieve their potential. This means that people should be provided with the right amount of financial support, given the opportunity to make their own choices, have equal access to services, be supported to access healthcare and treatment, and be able to participate in society on the same basis as other people.”
How can these new regulations support these objectives and why were they not scrutinised by the Social Security Advisory Committee? Why was no equalities impact assessment carried out? I hope the Minister can help us with answers to these questions.
This change will severely affect disabled young people who reach the age of 19 before finishing non-advanced education and those continuing to higher education. Many young people with impairments will take much longer to finish their full-time education and will be forced to make an impossible choice between trying to continue without access to the benefits they need or dropping out of education and losing out on future employment opportunities. The reality is that these regulations will force young disabled people who cannot continue their education without financial support to drop out. This also affects families and care givers, as their care responsibilities increase if the disabled young person they care for is not in education.
As many noble Lords have said, this measure is unfair and unjust, and it severely restricts the life chances for young people with disabilities. I hope, although I am not confident, that the Government will think again. We need to give a fair deal to young disabled people who only want the chance to achieve their potential, as the Government say, with the right amount of financial support, as the Government say, and to participate in society on the same basis as other people—as the Government say. I am not confident, but I hope the House will support this Motion.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, mentioned scrutiny and I will just deal with that quickly. These regulations were subject to scrutiny by the Social Security Advisory Committee on 15 October this year.
In closing, I assure all noble Lords that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting disabled people and are determined that support should be focused on people who need it most. These new regulations do not reduce the existing support, which is correctly available to disabled students, but rather ensure that this support continues to come from the appropriate source of government funding, which for disabled students, as for all students, is the student support system of loans and grants.
These new regulations do not remove entitlement to universal credit from any existing disabled student currently receiving it, nor from any future claim to universal credit from a person entitled to a qualifying disability benefit, such as PIP, who is subsequently determined to have a limited capability for work and wishes to start a course of education.
I should mention that the Government’s support for disabled students does not end on them completing their education. In our national disability strategy, we have committed to improving disabled people’s everyday lives. We have committed to make available the access to work adjustments passport for all disabled students, including those receiving disabled students’ allowance, when they leave university.
To support the transition from education into work, the Department for Work and Pensions is piloting the adjustments passport. We currently have two universities —Wolverhampton and Manchester Metropolitan—piloting the adjustments passport with the aim that a third will come on board in January.
The adjustments passport will provide students with a disability or health condition with an up-to-date record of the adjustments they are using and any future in-work support needs they may have. It will reduce the need for the student to repeat details of their disability and how it could affect them in work and reduce the need for a holistic assessment where the needs are documented.
The adjustments passport will provide a clear gateway of adjustment support by raising the visibility of support available for each stage of the transitions journey. It will also provide a transferable record of adjustments that can be used to support the adjustments journey and reduce the need for assessments. In addition, it will include a communication tool to support discussions with employers. It also gives visibility of in-work support if an employer employs a disabled person, and assurances and support to progress in work. It will also support potential employers by documenting the in-work support the student requires and the possibility of support the student could receive. It will also help to raise awareness of the Access to Work scheme and the support it can provide.
We recognise that talking about workplace adjustments can be difficult. To support and empower the student, the passport can be used as a communication tool to enable them to have a more structured and confident conversation about their disability and the adjustments they need with employers. Knowing what support is available for every stage of the transition journey will help to empower young disabled people to have confidence that their support needs are captured and aspire them to achieve their goals and chosen career rather than limiting their choices.
Once in employment, the passport would continue to add value by supporting progression and enabling disabled people to transfer between job roles more easily by increasing portability of support and reducing the need for reassessment where job roles or needs are similar.
Furthermore, a range of other DWP initiatives is supporting disabled people to prepare for, to start, to stay and to succeed in work. These include the Work and Health programme, the Intensive Personalised Employment Support programme, the Access to Work scheme, Disability Confident and support in partnership with the health system, including employment advice in the NHS Improving Access to Psychological Therapy service.
In 2021, the health and disability Green Paper, Shaping Future Support, explored how the welfare system can better meet the needs of disabled people and people with health conditions now and in the future to build a system that enables people to live independently and move into work where possible. The national disability strategy aims to ensure that all disabled people can play a full role in society. The strategy takes into account the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on disabled people, with focus on the issues that affect them the most, including employment.
I turn to the points raised by noble Lords. I will do my best to answer all the queries and if not, will of course write to noble Lords and put copies in the Library. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, talked about the closed-off route to universal credit. While closing the NSESA route leaves no direct path to claim universal credit for some disabled people who are already in education, in doing so this recognises that all students, including disabled students, have access to the support system, which includes support that recognises a person’s disability, such as the disabled students’ allowance for those in higher education, and discretionary bursaries and grants if undertaking further education. Disabled students also have access to other funds from their colleges. I will need to clarify that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was basically saying that the regulations were a regressive change. This amendment to the regulations simply maintains the current policy intent: to allow those entitled to personal independence payments or disability living allowance who are already assessed as having limited capability for work to take up or continue in education, with the intention that it may help them into work in the future. The new regulations do not reduce the existing support currently available to disabled students, but simply ensure that this support comes from the appropriate source of funding, which is the student support system of loans and grants. These new regulations do not remove entitlement to universal credit from any existing disabled student who is currently receiving it, nor from any future claim to universal credit from a person who is entitled to a qualifying disability benefit, such as personal independence payments, who is subsequently determined to have a limited capability for work and who wishes to start a course of education.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked why the Government did not do a full impact assessment. An equality analysis was completed and shared with the Social Security Advisory Committee for its consideration. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, also looked at the impact on students in further education with special educational needs and disabilities. Although the maximum allowed duration of a course is 12 weeks, if the work coach considers that the course is compatible with the person’s work-related requirements, they are referred for a work capability assessment and, if subsequently determined to have limited capability for work, there is then no limit to the duration of any subsequent course of training or study which a work coach considers will give the person the best chance of securing work. Additionally, if the person is entitled to a qualifying disability benefit, such as the personal independence payment, they will continue to be entitled to universal credit, as they will now meet the disabled student exception.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, also mentioned the position of those young people. The condition of entitlement to universal credit is not to be receiving education. Moreover, there are some exceptions, for example, the responsibility of a child entitled to DLA/PIP and already having a determination of LCW. Therefore, most young people, such as those in sixth form colleges, will not be entitled to universal credit as they are already in full-time education. To be entitled to universal credit, disabled students must not be receiving education, already be entitled to a qualifying disability benefit, and already have a determination of LCW through a WCA.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, mentioned that there had been a number of SIs relating to this and a number of amendments. The Government are committed to supporting disabled people. These regulations ensure that disabled people get support from the correct source of funding—mainly from student finance, as I said earlier.
The noble Baroness also asked about the numbers involved. It is difficult to give any firm evidence through the data. The data on how many disabled students have been using the new-style ESA workaround to meet the entitlement conditions for UC is very limited, but numbers are considered to be relatively small. I cannot go any further on numbers than that at the moment but, if there is anything more I can add, I will of course write to the noble Baroness.
In summary, while it is the case that the amending regulations will close the workaround and end an unintended route to universal credit that a relatively small number of disabled students have been using, the new regulations do not reduce the existing support currently available to disabled students. The new regulations ensure that support continues to come from the appropriate source of government funding, namely the student support systems of loans and grants, which includes support that recognises a person’s disability. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Storey, to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Storey (LD)
I thank all Members for their careful, considered comments, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for her thorough explanation of what young disabled students face. Her invention of the ministerial nod is something we should perhaps use in future.
I was very interested in the comments of my noble friend Lord Shipley as chair of the Youth Unemployment Select Committee, which has just produced its report, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about that impact assessment. We need to see that and understand it in future deliberations. My noble friend Lady Janke of course talked about the injustice we all face.
This matter is so important, as education would improve disabled students’ employment prospects but also their feeling of well-being and of being part of a community. Of course, it also has some unforeseen consequences. For example, it affects the ability of family care givers to work, as their care responsibilities increase if a disabled young person they care for is not in education. Both the carer and the disabled young person will be worse off as a result.
The Minister said in his closing comments that disabled people will get the funding support they need and that new regulations do not reduce existing support. Those are very powerful words. I am minded to test the opinion of the House on this. However, if the Minister can give me one of these new-found ministerial nods to say that we can perhaps review the situation and see how his comment that every young person will not get their funding reduced is working out, I am happy to have that opportunity to have a proper discussion and debate about this. I am a little disappointed that so few people were able to be in the House for this important debate.
In June 2021, Flinn Kays, a disabled psychology student who receives the enhanced rate of both the mobility and daily living components of the PIP, which the Minister talked about, was granted permission to apply for judicial review of the 2020 regulations. He calculates that he may be entitled to around £900 a month in universal credit but, due to the 2020 regulations, his universal credit claim was refused and he was not invited to a work capability assessment. There is no date yet for the judicial review, but when that reports it might be a good time for us to come back and debate this whole area, so that we see that, as the Minister said, every student gets the funding they need.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Monday 13th December 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 72-II Manuscript amendment for Report, supplementary to the Second Marshalled List - (13 Dec 2021)
22:54 - Division on Amendment 61 - Ayes: 18 / Noes: 105 - Amendment 61 disagreed.
“(3A) Section 34 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (disqualification for certain offences) is amended as follows.(3B) In subsection (3), in the words after paragraph (d)—(a) after “the offence” insert “(“the new offence”)”;(b) for “three years” substitute “the period specified in subsection (3A)”.(3C) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) The period is—(a) six years, where—(i) an offence of which the person was convicted within the ten years mentioned in subsection (3) falls within paragraph (aa) of that subsection, and(ii) the new offence also falls within that paragraph;(b) in any other case (but subject to subsection (4ZA)), three years.”(3D) In subsection (4)—(a) in the words before paragraph (a), after “(3) above” insert “and subsection (4ZA) below”;(b) in paragraph (a)—(i) omit sub-paragraph (ii) (and the “or” after it);(ii) in sub-paragraph (iia), for “that Act” substitute “the Road Traffic Act 1988”;(iii) omit sub-paragraph (iii) (and the “or” before it, but not the “and” after it).(3E) After subsection (4) insert—“(4ZA) Subsection (1) shall apply as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to five years in relation to a person convicted of—(a) an offence under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (causing death by dangerous driving), or(b) an offence under section 3A of that Act (causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs),but this is subject to subsection (3) in cases within paragraph (a) of subsection (3A).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases minimum disqualification periods for offences under sections 1 and 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, keeping our roads safe is a key priority for the Government. Too many innocent road users are killed or injured by the reckless actions of a minority of selfish and uncaring drivers who simply do not understand or appreciate the responsibility that comes with holding a driving licence. We can and must do more to force home the message that holding a driving licence comes with a serious level of responsibility. If drivers are prepared to ignore their responsibility, we will use the law to ensure that they are removed from the roads.
We listened carefully to the passionate and well-informed opinions voiced by noble Lords during the Committee stage debates on road traffic offences. Against that background, we reflected with great care on what change we might make to the Bill to further the cause of road safety. Our deliberations have resulted in the Government tabling Amendment 58, which I am confident will improve road safety.
The amendment focuses on two of the most serious road traffic offences: causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. These cause untold grief to many families every year. Both involve a degree of recklessness that is completely unacceptable. Elsewhere in this Bill we are increasing the maximum sentence from 14 years to life for these offences.
This amendment reinforces the seriousness with which the Government regard these two offences by increasing the minimum period of disqualification from driving for anyone convicted of them. In the case of causing death by dangerous driving, the amendment increases the minimum period of disqualification from two years to five years. In the case of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, the amendment also increases the minimum period of disqualification from two years to five years. But it also goes a step further in respect of this offence. The amendment maintains the existing principle of having a longer minimum period of disqualification for a repeat offence of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, raising it from three years to six years.
I recognise that depriving a driver of his or her licence for at least five years is a substantial sanction, but when a driver causes the death of another person by driving dangerously or carelessly because of drink or drugs, I think we are fully justified in saying that those drivers should be taken off the road for a substantial period of time. This amendment should act as a serious deterrent for drivers—a warning that driving so dangerously or carelessly as to cause the death of another person is completely unacceptable and will have serious consequences, not only for personal liberty but for the ability to continue driving.
There will remain within the law an element of discretion for judges. They will be permitted to impose a disqualification that is less than the minimum period of five or six years, or not to impose a disqualification at all where there are special reasons for doing so. This allows judges to deal with the unique circumstances of any case before them, which is an important element of our judicial system.
A number of other road traffic-related amendments in this group put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raise important issues, but the nub of it is that the sponsors of these amendments want to see a wider review of road traffic legislation. I can advise noble Lords that the Department for Transport is currently scoping a call for evidence on changes to road traffic offences. I will say more when winding up, but, for now, I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the various amendments in this group. I first thank the Minister for arranging two meetings with her colleagues, one in Transport and one in her department, which were very helpful in sharing our concerns—I am speaking from briefings from a large number of groups that are concerned about road safety generally. As a result, we reached some quite good conclusions about where things are going.
Amendment 58 is a good start, so I do not need to spend too long speaking to some of the other amendments. Although it is a welcome start, I also welcome the much wider review that the Minister mentioned. The issue with that review, which comes under my Amendment 65, is that it could cover an enormous scope of issues. We can all think of things about road safety that should be improved—the legislation and the penalties—and it covers some of the issues which will probably come up later today in considering other amendments. I am pleased that the review is starting in January, but I hope that the Minister will be able to say a little more about it. How long it will take? Who will be involved? Will the Government welcome input from people outside—from your Lordships’ House, from the other place and from other groups? Will a report be published with all the evidence? One hopes so.
If that is the case, the next thing, of course, is the legislation needed to implement those. Some of it may require primary legislation; some of it could perhaps be done by secondary legislation. But, again, that needs to be looked at. Perhaps when the Minister responds at the end of this grouping, she could give us a bit more detail about that. This is a good start, but there is still a long way to go.
I will speak very briefly, first on Amendment 63. We discussed “exceptional hardship” at some length in Committee. What worries me—it is worth repeating the statistics—is that 8,632 motorists are still permitted to drive despite having 12 or more points on their licence. I will not go into examples, but that indicates to me that something needs to be done. I do not know whether the Minister has considered it, but in advance of and separately from the review, would it be possible for Ministers to look again and consider revising or amending the sentencing advice to magistrates, so that this was tightened up a bit? I think she will agree that 8,000 such people driving around, having decided that having their car is essential to take their dog for a walk, is probably rather more than one would want to see.
Turning now to Amendment 64, on failure to stop and report, we got into quite a significant debate about that and the relationship between the circumstances and the penalties. What worries me is that, since 2017, the number of people convicted of this offence had gone up by 43% in four years. I do not know why that should be—maybe the Minister has some answers to that—but it indicates that failing to stop and report collisions is quite serious. We discussed in Committee whether that was due to more people having mobile phones or whatever, but this is another of those things I would ask her to look at in advance of the review. If she can, what timescale would that entail?
I think I have probably spoken enough about the review itself. We are grateful for the review. The list of issues I put in the amendment is just a sample, and I am sure many people will have many other things to put in. But if the Minister can give us some information about the scope, as well as the timescale and everything else, that would be extremely good.
I will now speak very briefly to the manuscript amendment I tabled this morning. I apologise for the late delivery of this, but it was due to a changed meeting with Network Rail that many of us thought would be a good idea to have before we tabled the amendment—it turned out that it did not happen. I put it to the Minister that she is aware that this is a serious problem. Network Rail’s figure is that there is an average of seven bridge bashes a day—I repeat, seven a day—across the whole network. Some are not serious, but some could derail a train, and I do not want to go into what might happen there.
I have got as far as coming up with a long list of possible solutions, which I will not spend too much time on, and this is something that needs looking at. One of them is to allow local authorities to prosecute lorries for contravening the height regulations. They can prosecute for contravening weight regulations at the moment, so why could they not do height ones as well? I think it just needs a small change to the regulations. Traffic commissioners could be asked to remove the licences of drivers of vehicles that contravene. Obviously, the drivers and shippers could be prosecuted. The Government could require drivers’ apps—or whatever it is we put on our mobiles—to include the height of bridges; it could even include the height of the lorry, and an alarm could sound if it went wrong. You could erect those barriers we talked about last time, with the little electronic eyes.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for that vote of confidence. I wish to speak to the amendments in my name and to the group in general.
I start with Amendment 63, on exceptional hardship. If you Google “exceptional hardship”, the first listing is an advert from a firm of solicitors. I will not give their name; they do not need free publicity from me because they also advertise on the television. They describe themselves as “exceptional hardship” and “totting up” solicitors. They define exceptional hardship as “real hardship”. They say they have covered more than 10,000 cases and have a 98% success rate. No wonder, as a recent FoI request revealed, there are 8,632 drivers driving around with more than 12 penalty points. The firm I have described is not alone; there are dozens of other firms of solicitors advertising similarly. This is an industry: this is not an exceptional situation that we are dealing with.
Amendment 63 seeks to define exceptional hardship as something significantly greater than the definition provided by that firm of solicitors and significantly greater than the hardship that would arise for a large majority of other drivers. The definition takes into account the offender’s economic circumstances, location and family circumstances. I bring this to the attention of the Government, and say that there is no point in putting down amendments for more and more stringent penalties if there is a gigantic loophole which is being exploited in front of our eyes.
Amendment 66AA, on bridge strikes, is the manuscript amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I am grateful to him for persisting with this issue because it is a very serious accident waiting to happen. As he has described, lorries hit bridges all the time. This causes a major impact on train services and on our economy, as well as obviously presenting a road safety issue. There are huge costs to the HGV drivers as well. Clearly, drivers do not do this deliberately, so there must be a problem. The problem is almost certainly in the signage; we have the technology nowadays, and improved signage needs to be implemented. There also needs to be a reappraisal of responsibilities between Network Rail and the highways authorities, where there is an interface.
Clearly, both my Amendment 66A and that of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, present examples of the type of issues that need to be included in a long overdue review of road traffic offences. My amendment is similar to that from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but I have selected some other features that I think are important. It is unfortunate that all these are lumped together, but it is important that we look at this in a little detail. There is a separate group for pedicabs, which are a very small feature of modern roads and do not exist outside London, but they are one of a large number of new features of our transport system that need to be looked at and reappraised in the context of road traffic overall.
Another example of a new feature is e-scooters. It is reported that at least 11 people have been killed in the last year either on or by e-scooters. The Government’s approach has been to set up lots of pilot projects. Basically, e-scooters have been allowed to spread nationwide as a result of a lack of intervention. In a Written Answer I received from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, when I made inquiries about safety issues associated with e-scooters, she said:
“While trials are running, privately-owned e-scooters will remain illegal to use on the road, cycle lanes or pavements.”
That is fair enough, but no one ever does anything about the fact that thousands of them are being used, and tens of thousands more will be bought this Christmas.
The large number of pilot projects has led people to believe that e-scooters are legal everywhere. The problem is that, because they are illegal, there are so many of them around and the rules not enforced, bad practice is now the norm. Noble Lords have only to walk outside this building to see that bad practice. There are issues such as minimum age—they are often ridden by very young people—maximum speed, wearing helmets, registration, and where you ride: on the pavement or on the road. This week, Transport for London has responded to the latest danger: fires from exploding batteries. There have been several fires on TfL vehicles because people carry those scooters on trains. Transport for London has said that people can no longer do that, but it has had considerable problems and all transport operators will have to consider this issue.
We will come later to the issue of alcohol levels, so I will leave that, but another issue I want to raise is road signage. In 2016, there was a relaxation of the specification and standards for road signs. It appears to be part of a drive to reduce red tape. Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and I met the family of a young woman who drowned when she drove at night into a ford in bad weather on a country road. From the coroner’s report, it is obvious that the poor quality of the signage was a key factor because other people had also driven into that ford by mistake—luckily for them, with not such a terrible impact. The depth gauge at that ford was so slim and poorly marked that it was invisible at night. The previous standard for depth gauges, which was abolished in 2016, required a much bigger and clearer structure.
This and others are simply taster issues for the huge range that need to be included in a review. It was promised in 2014, with a public consultation phase. We are still working on the basis of the endlessly amended Road Traffic Act 1988. Our roads have been transformed since then by the number of vehicles, vehicle technology and capability and new sorts of vehicles. The key point I am trying to make with this amendment is that the review must be comprehensive, rather than just addressing a handful of issues that are annoying Ministers at the moment. It needs to be done now, not kicked into the long grass again. It needs specifically to grapple with new technologies and forms of transport such as autonomous vehicles. It must take an overall approach to consistency of sentencing.
The problem with the approach in the Bill is that the Government have plucked out some offences for tighter sentencing, which will inevitably leave them out of kilter with other offences. The Government’s approach is for stiffer sentences with longer jail terms, but many transport campaign groups would prioritise appropriate sentencing, especially disqualification and community sentences. There are many bad drivers out there, but they often lead otherwise law-abiding lives. We have nothing to gain as a society by locking them up, which is costly to the taxpayer in the short term and in the long term, as they become much less employable on release. So, alternatives ought to be considered to simply putting people in prison.
The good thing about disqualification is that it protects the public. The key point of my amendment is that there needs to be full public consultation. In 2016, in a debate in the other place, the Government claimed that there had indeed been a review, as promised in 2014, but there was no public consultation and no published outcome. That makes a mockery of the whole process, so I am very pleased to hear from the Minister that there are plans now for a proper review, and I shall be listening carefully to what she has to tell us. I hope it will be a full and comprehensive review with proper public consultation that will take place in the very near future.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is good that the Government have realised that our road traffic laws are a mess, because the cost—the human cost, the social cost—of the crimes and offences we are talking about is extremely high. When we think of the cost of the deaths and injuries to the NHS, to social services, to the emergency services, we are talking about billions of pounds and we really ought to understand that a lot of the causes are avoidable.
When I first got on to the Met Police authority, I went out a lot with the traffic teams—I have told this story before—and one sergeant said to me, “If I wanted to murder somebody, I would run them over with a car, because nobody could ever prove it was not an accident”. This brings me to the word “accident”, which we really should not use when we are talking about road collisions, road incidents and so on. It offends me and the whole road safety community deeply, because the minute you use the word “accident”, you are judging the cause of whatever happened and that is obviously unfair. You have to look into what really happened.
The most dangerous idea is people who should be disqualified from driving being able to plead exceptional hardship. We have heard a lot about “exceptional hardship”: what a misnomer. People are often allowed to keep on driving and quite honestly, they should feel lucky that they have not gone to prison because a lot of the time, it is complete nonsense. I have read about a lot of cases where the judge or the magistrate allowed someone to get away with—well, not murder, but certainly manslaughter at times. It is obviously a crime against society, not to mention the families themselves.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Was that objection to what I am saying or support? I could not work it out. We should be aiming for zero road deaths. They just should not happen. The roads and pavement should be safe spaces. We achieve that by making sure that drivers—and pedestrians as well, of course—obey the law. Legislation must comprehend just how damaging bad and careless driving are.
Finally, Amendments 65 and 66A would require a total review of road traffic offences and penalties. That really is the only sensible way forward, and the only way for society to properly address the damage caused by car culture and start the journey towards zero road deaths. I look forward very much to hearing the details of the review and hope that it happens soon.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I most sincerely apologise to the House for not being present at the start of this debate. I strongly support the thrust of the amendment about bridge-bashing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. One day the holes in the cheese will line up and there will be a very serious accident, and the whole world will ask why we did not use technology to avoid such accidents. I strongly support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about “exceptional hardship”; I would not actually vote against the Government on it, but I strongly support it.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
We welcome the fact that the Government are committing to a call for evidence on road safety issues next year. Like other noble Lords, I should be interested to know how long this exercise is expected to take. Also, is it purely a DfT matter, or a cross-departmental matter—and, if so, which departments are involved? On the general issue of road safety, I comment briefly on what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, just said. You could always reduce the number of road accidents fairly dramatically if you reduced the speed limit everywhere to 10 miles an hour, but, as a Government, you might not survive very long politically if you did that.
On “exceptional hardship”—the subject of one of the other amendments—maybe there are cases where courts are a bit too lenient. You have to draw the distinction between hardship and inconvenience, because the two are not the same. You do, however, get cases where there could be exceptional hardship and you have to think long and hard. An example would be a single parent who loses access to a car. That could have quite a profound impact on the children, particularly if they do not realistically have anyone else to help them out. You could also end up with a situation where the disqualification of a carer might involve significant impact—hardship perhaps not so much for the carer but for the person being cared for. When you are faced with some of these situations, it is not quite as straightforward as saying “You’ve broken the law, you’ve reached 12 points and you’re off the road”: you may need to look at the consequences. I note with interest the amendment on exceptional hardship. It may well be taken into account in the review what exceptional hardship means and whether it is being applied too leniently and too frequently.
We support Amendment 58—the minimum driving disqualification periods—as we have the increases in sentences for those offences, including causing death by dangerous or careless driving. We welcome the change that the Government propose.
I think that Amendment 64, relating to hit-and-run, mentions a maximum sentence of 14 years in custody. That seems quite a dramatic increase from the current limit. I am not sure whether it is envisaged that if an accident has caused a serious or fatal injury the maximum of 14 years for not stopping is in addition to what you would get for causing the fatal injury—in which case you could get quite a high sentence. I am just commenting on the fact that it seems to be raising the maximum sentence for failing to stop quite considerably. I do not know what the Minister will say about this on behalf of the Government but again, presumably, there is no reason why that should not be considered as part of the review.
With regard to the new amendment on the hitting of bridges, which my noble friend Lord Berkeley has proposed, I have some sympathy with the view that has been expressed that surely there must be a way that technology can reduce the frequency of these events. Perhaps one is a bit too prone to make speeches saying that technology must be able to resolve these issues for us, but one would have thought that this is one area where technology should play a role, and I hope that the Minister will take this issue away and that the Government will reflect on it as part of their general look at road safety issues. I will leave it at that, without commenting on the other amendments in this group.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, with regard to Amendment 58, I welcome the fact that the Government are taking to task the causing of death through careless driving or being under the influence of drugs or drink. For many families that have lost loved ones to then sit in court as the perpetrator gets a ludicrous sentence for the taking of life while not having the personal responsibility to control their behaviour, especially in terms of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs—that can only be described as insult added to injury. I therefore very much welcome that amendment.
On Amendment 63, can the Minister find some common ground between the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and noble Baroness, Lady Randerson? Both their points seemed to me to carry weight.
Not stopping after a collision can lead to the serious deterioration of an injury where the other party is unable perhaps to summon help. The situation is seriously exacerbated if someone drives away without reporting it.
Finally, I make a small point about e-scooters. This occurred to me only this evening, when driving here, and then listening to the noble Baroness opposite. Somebody pulled out in front of me on an e-scooter, and the real problem was that any light it might have had was below the bonnet or even wheel of the vehicle behind—even if it was there in the first place. There was no lighting or reflective clothing on this person above shoe level, and none on the helmet; it is completely impossible to see somebody like that, and it gave me a terrific start. I could so easily have seriously damaged this person; it would not really have been my fault, but I would have felt profoundly disturbed by it. That is just a small point that the Government might want to look at in due course.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest, as I am president of RoSPA. I shall make a few quick points. I took my driving test in 1975, and in 2005 I had a job with a brand new shiny car that went with it, which was lovely. The organisation that I worked for insisted that every member of that organisation who had a car had to spend a whole day a year having a lesson with a driving instructor. It was amazing. I had completely forgotten an awful lot, and I learned even more. It made me very much more aware of all these issues that we are talking about now—and I see several heads nodding, so perhaps there is a certain amount of empathy with that.
On the point of bridges and signage, the other issues that we are not including in this measure is that a majority of cars these days have a GPS system incorporated. Why do they not have the height of bridges programmed into the GPS so that, as they drive towards the bridge, the height comes up, and lorry drivers can see that they are not going to get under it and stop? Those are the small points that occurred to me—although this is completely not my field—as noble Lords were debating these issues.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the support for the government amendment. I know that there is a strong appetite to go even further among noble Lords in reforming road traffic offences. Amendments 63, 64, 65 and 66A are directed to this end. I am pleased that many noble Lords who contributed to this debate were able to discuss these issues with my noble friend Lady Vere, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said.
Amendment 63 seeks to introduce a definition for the term “exceptional hardship”, which applies in the context of a court’s decision on whether to impose a driving ban. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his good analysis of it, and the implications that it might have. We agree that drivers who display poor driving behaviours and reach 12 points should receive an automatic ban to protect themselves and other road users. However, sentencing decisions are properly a matter for our independent courts, based on the facts of the case before them. They have discretion over the length of a driving disqualification to ensure that it is right for the offence and offender before them and, if they are satisfied, they can accept mitigating circumstances justifying a claim of “exceptional hardship”. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, gave some very good examples of what that might mean to some people.
We do not consider the introduction of a definition of this term to be necessary. The amendment would introduce a narrow definition that would not be able to account for all circumstances presented to the courts, and would remove their freedom to use their experience to reach decisions accordingly.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would include pedicabs within scope of the offence of causing serious injury by careless, or inconsiderate, driving.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 59 I will also speak to the other amendments in my name as part of this group. I will try to take as little time as possible, because I know that there is still much to get through this evening.
These amendments refer to pedicabs, which are also sometimes known as rickshaws. They are loud and sometimes garish, and they hang out at all the tourist hot spots here in London. I will not repeat all that I said in Committee, but let me remind your Lordships of the problem I am seeking to address.
Pedicabs are the only form of public transport in London that is completely unregulated. The vehicles and their drivers are not subject to any kind of checks, they do not need insurance, they can charge passengers whatever they want, and they are exempt from the vast majority of traffic violations. Pedicabs can ply for hire in direct competition with our heavily regulated black cabs on any street or place in Greater London. Knowing that they can act with impunity, the vast majority of them do.
Noble Lords heard me describe in Committee the evidence of careless driving and antisocial behaviour. One of the most unacceptable aspects of pedicabs is the huge disruption they cause through the extremely loud music that many of them play. This unacceptable situation has gone on for well over 20 years. Westminster City’s residents, business owners and tradespeople who have to navigate our congested streets to do an honest day’s or night’s work have had enough and want something done.
My modest amendments to this Bill do not go anywhere near far enough in addressing the unfairness of this situation, never mind limiting the damage and reputational risk of allowing these vehicles to continue unregulated on our roads. I tabled them in part to raise awareness of the problem. These amendments are the best I can do with the legislation in front of us.
I am very grateful for the positive response I received from noble Lords in Committee. I am especially grateful to the Government for their fulsome support, not for these amendments but for the much better solution, which I referred to in Committee, that is currently in the House of Commons. A Private Member’s Bill has been brought forward by Nickie Aiken, the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster, which would give Transport for London the powers it needs to introduce a licensing and regulatory regime for pedicabs. It would not ban them outright, because there are one or two reputable businesses which provide this service and want to be properly licensed and regulated.
Before I say any more about why I have retabled my amendments and where we are now with the Private Member’s Bill, I should explain why legislation is needed. Although pedicabs can be covered by local authority licensing and regulatory regimes in the rest of England and Wales, case law has determined that, in London, these vehicles are stagecoaches rather than hackney carriages. Therefore, Transport for London needs to be given the necessary powers to introduce a proper licensing and regulatory regime.
I am pleased to say that Nickie Aiken’s Pedicabs (London) Bill started its Second Reading on Friday 19 November, which was after the Committee stage of this Bill. Getting that far is no mean feat, bearing in mind where she was on the Order Paper that day—she was fifth, and she managed to get her debate under way. She set out her case very powerfully, and the Minister responded, declaring the Government’s full backing for the Bill, which is brilliant news and vital if that Bill is to make it on to the statute book. Sadly, time ran out that day before it could complete its Second Reading. Nickie tried again, unsuccessfully, to complete it on 3 December. It is now scheduled again, for Friday 21 January.
Nickie is not giving up, and neither am I. There is still a real chance that she will get over that hurdle next month. If she does, and with the Government’s declared support, there is every reason to be positive that we will get this on to the statute book this Session—but time in this Session is starting to run out.
I am very grateful to my noble friends Lady Vere, Lady Williams and Lord Sharpe, their officials and the Bill team for the time they have given to meeting me to discuss this matter over the last few weeks. Since Committee, I have explored a range of alternative amendments to this Bill, as stopgaps in case that Private Member’s Bill fails, but these are either deemed out of scope or are detrimental in some other way as to render them unacceptable.
I will not divide the House on these amendments tonight, as I know the Government do not support them; no doubt the Minister will explain why. I remind noble Lords that these amendments would bring pedicabs into scope of careless driving offences and prohibit loudspeakers, which they use to amplify music.
Even though Nickie and I have not given up on her Private Member’s Bill succeeding, I am worried not to lose the faith of the people of Westminster, the black cab drivers and businesspeople who pay their taxes, live by the law of the land and work hard to maintain the reputation of our capital city. Countless times over the years they have had their hopes raised and dashed that this will be sorted out. Indeed, this situation must feel like a real injustice when they face so much regulatory burden and so many hurdles, while the pedicab riders who flout the law without a care in the world do not. This sense of unfairness only gets worse, as yet more road restrictions in the capital are implemented, especially for our black cab drivers.
I am immensely grateful for the Government’s ongoing support of the Private Member’s Bill and all the effort everyone is making to get it over the line. We are not giving up on that; there is still everything to play for. Before I withdraw this amendment at the end of the debate, I ask my noble friend the Minister: what assurance can he give me that the Government will not allow this injustice to drift on if the worst happens and Nickie’s Bill does not pass in this Session? I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling these amendments, which are very interesting. I will speak to the amendments as opposed to the Private Member’s Bill, but I will have quite a few comments on that too.
I have nothing at all against pedicabs, though I do not like the noise and they get in the way sometimes—but then so do bicycles, although they do not make noises. My worry is, first of all, with the definition of a pedicab. As I read it, it would also include a tandem bicycle. Who would know whether my passenger on the back was paying me? I think one has to go into a bit more detail than that.
There are more and more pedicabs going around which are actually pulling freight. I am sure the noble Baroness would not want to stop them being an environmentally friendly form of freight. If the vehicle had two seats, and if the driver had a friend on the back and somebody said, “You’re paying for it”, he would come under this regulation. That is before we get into the question of electric assistance, which I think some pedicabs have. Frankly, some of them go very fast and I do not think it is particularly safe, but we have to make sure that the definition is absolutely right.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, moved her amendment extremely clearly and explained the background in a way that I, as a sitting magistrate in the City of Westminster, understand very well. I have indeed dealt with some pedicabs in my time. The noble Baroness said that she will not divide the House, and I understand that.
I will pick up a couple of points made by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. This is a fast-evolving situation with freight pedicabs and electric freight pedicabs. Even in my current sitting pattern over the last few months, I have seen the way the police charge e-scooters changing really quite radically. To give an example, probably less than a year ago, I only ever saw e-scooters charged with traffic offences if there was another offence associated with it, such as robbery or an accident. But now, literally in the last month or so, I see e-scooters charged as a stand-alone traffic incident, if I can put it like that. There is clearly an evolution in the way the police are addressing these issues. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness has tabled an interesting group of amendments, and I look forward to exploring it in more depth if the Private Member’s Bill ever gets here.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I will comment briefly on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. This is an evolving situation. The key point is that the noble Baroness has raised the issue of a particular type of pedicab, but there is a crossover with the cargo bikes that are increasingly being used and are increasingly welcome for the delivery of goods, parcels and so on. They are hugely welcome on our streets. It is really important that any legislation deals with those two issues and separates them out, although the vehicles are very similar. To my mind, that underlines the point I was making earlier about my amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley: we need a complete and comprehensive review of the emerging and changing picture of traffic on our streets.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank again my noble friend Lady Stowell for her work on this issue. I know she feels passionately about the regulation of pedicabs, particularly in the capital. I also thank all noble Lord who took part in this brief debate.
In England outside of London, as my noble friend is aware, pedicabs can be regulated as hackney carriages—that is, as a taxi—so the local licensing authority can require the driver and the vehicle to be licensed. In London, which has separate taxi and private hire vehicle legislation, this is not the case, as my noble friend pointed out. This means that there are not many powers for Transport for London to regulate pedicabs.
The Government agree that there needs to be greater regulation of pedicabs in London. That is why they are fulsomely supporting the Private Member’s Bill being brought forward by Nickie Aiken MP in the other place. I know my noble friend has also been a strong supporter of that Private Member’s Bill. The Government also strongly support that Bill as it would enable Transport for London to put in place a cohesive regulatory framework for the licensing of pedicabs in London. I share my noble friend’s disappointment that it has yet to pass its Second Reading, but, as she noted, that has been rescheduled for 21 January.
Should that Private Member’s Bill be unsuccessful, the Government remain committed to bringing forward the necessary legislation when parliamentary time allows. I assure noble Lords that we will take this commitment seriously. We explored whether the provisions of the Private Member’s Bill could be incorporated into this Bill, but regrettably, as they focus on regulation and licensing, they fall outside its scope.
Once again, I praise my noble friend’s commitment to resolving this issue, but although I note the spirit with which her amendments have been proposed, it is the Government’s view that amendments are not the right method for making these changes. The introduction of a licensing regime for pedicabs, as the Private Member’s Bill would introduce, is the appropriate way forward for this matter. The Government do not believe that a partial way forward would be an appropriate or effective way to deal with this.
On the subjects raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, to go back to the previous group, my noble friend the Minister outlined the call for evidence. I suggest that that would be the appropriate place to raise those points, because they are very good ones. This is probably not the right time to get involved in a debate about what is and is not a tandem, however.
I hope my noble friend is somewhat reassured that the Government share her view and commitment on this. Although I cannot give her the categorical assurance she seeks, I hope she feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his and the Government’s ongoing support for resolving this matter, and particularly for the Private Member’s Bill, which remains live in the other place.
I note that my noble friend said that amending this legislation is not the right way to address this issue. That point is very much in response to most of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. What I acknowledged in bringing forward these amendments is that there is a well-established regulatory body here in London standing ready to introduce a licensing and regulatory regime that would properly cover pedicabs in a way that would target them and not catch the other vehicles that would not be intended to be included in any kind of regime. The concerns he has would be addressed by the way we want to make sure this matter is dealt with.
The point is that it is possible in the rest of England and Wales for local authorities to license and regulate pedicabs as and when they arrive in cities or different towns, as my noble friend the Minister has already said. It is only in London where we have this legal gap. There is nothing at the moment—apart from any kind of specific laws that get broken—which would cover any unacceptable activity. But it is so unfair because we currently have operators on the street who can quite legally ply for trade and compete with black cabs on an uneven playing field, and in doing so, they rip off tourists and give our capital city a bad name. None the less, I am sure there are a lot of pedicab operators who would provide a fantastic service that would operate alongside black cabs, Uber and everything else if we were able to bring in a professional regime and, at the same time, prevent them operating in a way which would be unacceptable to residents and businesspeople in our capital city.
This issue needs to be addressed, so let us all keep rooting for this Private Member’s Bill. I would be happy to speak to the noble Lord about any specific points he wants to raise about that Bill, in the hope that it is going to come here.
Finally, if I can use the collective noun of “officialdom”, there comes a point when we have to recognise that it is not good enough if the only thing we ever do is legislate in a way which increases the burdens on people, but we never find the time to introduce laws that tackle those who have no intention of ever operating within the law. That is what we need to do. However, on that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am moving this amendment to enable the House to continue the discussion which took place in Committee with regard to what was then Clause 66: the new offence of causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving. I should stress that we are dealing here with careless driving pure and simple, with no aggravating factors or other offence being committed—an act of carelessness or a moment of inattention which causes a serious injury.
My objection to the clause relates to the fact that among the penalties that a conviction for this offence will attract is a sentence of imprisonment: two years on indictment and one year if prosecuted summarily. There are also provisions for automatic—or, I should say, obligatory—disqualification and endorsement. I make no complaint about that, nor do I complain about the two-year sentence on indictment. However, I am concerned about the sentence of imprisonment in cases which do not deserve to go to jury trial and are taken summarily before magistrates, or before sheriffs in Scotland.
I recognise that as the law stands, causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving does attract a sentence of imprisonment. On the other hand, causing a very serious life-changing injury, where perhaps the injured party has survived only by the skill of the doctors, does not. I can well understand why the Government see this as a gap which needs to be filled. But the situations to which the wording of this clause will apply extend well beyond those where one can reasonably say that there is a gap in the present law that needs to be filled. The words “careless” and “serious injury” can embrace many situations where to send the careless driver to prison would be wholly disproportionate. That is my concern.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I support the opposition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and my noble friend Lady Randerson to this clause. The clause as it stands is simply wrong in principle and I agree with the noble and learned Lord that this is not a case where you can simply tinker with the language. The problem is that the clause threatens to penalise the outcome of the offence—that is, serious injury—with imprisonment, yet the mental element of the offence of careless driving is no more than negligence. Careless driving involves no more than a driver falling below the standard of care of a prudent driver. All negligence is careless; a simple mistake or inadvertence will suffice. To make such an offence imprisonable because it results in serious injury is not a step that we have taken before. It offends against the principle that the seriousness of the offence should depend not just upon the act done, but on the state of mind of the offender. That is what distinguishes careless driving from dangerous driving, because dangerous driving involves a very serious departure from the normal standard of a careful and sensible driver.
I make one further point. In the absence of mechanical failure or an unexpected event, almost every accident is the result of negligence on the part of at least one of the drivers involved. Sadly, a large number of accidents involve serious injury. A broken limb is a serious injury for this purpose, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out.
The vast majority of accidents arising from negligence —whether they cause serious injury or not—do not currently lead to prosecution. I should be grateful to hear whether the Minister regards the establishment of this new offence as likely to lead to more prosecutions. This clause would leave it to the police and prosecuting authorities to pick out the few accidents which they decided should lead to prosecution. This would expose drivers to the risk of imprisonment for a simple mistake. Leaving this decision to the police and prosecuting authorities to implement in a very few selected cases would be arbitrary and unfair. It would introduce an unwelcome element of lottery into our justice system.
It may well be that the noble and learned Lord does not press this to a vote. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, we will get a very clear statement from the Minister as to how prosecuting decisions will be taken in these cases and as to what he regards as the likely approach to sentencing. I suggest that imprisonment for inadvertence is a retrograde step.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I was pleased to have the opportunity to join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on Amendment 60A—whether Clause 67 should stand part of the Bill. I thank the Minister for his time and willingness to try to assist us. I shall listen carefully to what he has to say.
The crux of this is when careless becomes dangerous. My experience in 20 years as a magistrate is that, basically, people are charged with both in the hope that the prosecution manages to make one or the other stick, as they say. I share the concern expressed by my noble friend of exactly what careless means. What should it mean? It should mean exactly what comes into our minds when we use the word. It should not be regarded as just a slightly milder form of dangerous. The thought processes behind it should be significantly different. Careless usually implies without specific intent—often a momentary lack of attention. Most of us sitting here will have suffered from this at some point in our driving careers. Most of us will have been lucky enough not to have caused an accident during that momentary lack of attention. Or, if we did cause an accident, hopefully it did not cause injury. Even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has struggled with the definition and hence opted to try to remove the clause.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, because he has assured us that he will be able to elucidate sufficiently for us to feel that there will be a clear distinction. We do not want to face a situation in which, for example, a harassed mother with a child or two in the back who backs out of a parking space and inadvertently hits a pedestrian might go to prison, when she was backing out carefully in terms of her own concentration at that moment, was not going fast and was looking in her mirrors, but there were too many things happening at the same time for her to be able to concentrate fully and she made a terrible mistake.
I think we have all been guilty of that sort of momentary inattention or error of judgment and people should not find themselves being sent to prison for something such as that. It is therefore very important that the Minister is able to reassure us that that is not the kind of thing the Government have in mind.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, it appears that there has been some constructive discussion behind the scenes in preparation for this debate—I can see the Minister nodding his head.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his very clear exposition of the issues he is raising with this. Essentially, his points were that the law should not threaten prison if somebody is careless, when a disqualification is more appropriate, and that adding the word “very” before the words “careless” or “serious injury” is not an appropriate way forward and there should be another approach. I hope we may hear from the Minister on that in due course.
I support the opposition to the clause itself expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and also listened with great interest to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on whether the Minister thinks there may be any possible increase in prosecutions under this new definition of carelessness. I hope that is not what the Minister intends.
I also share the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that in magistrates’ courts you often see dangerousness and carelessness charged in the alternate and it is up to the court to decide which is the more appropriate charge. Having said all that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, referred a moment ago to constructive discussions. There have indeed been discussions between me, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and, so far as I was concerned, they were constructive. I am grateful to both of them for the time they gave to those conversations. I will set out the Government’s position, and I hope it will reassure them on the various points they raised.
Clause 67 introduces a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving. By creating this new offence, the clause fills an admittedly small but, we think, significant gap in the current legislation. We considered the creation of this new offence and the maximum penalty it attracts very carefully during the review of driving offences that cause death or serious injury. We remain of the view that there is a clear gap in the law. That view was supported by the vast majority of people who responded to the consultation and by the other place.
Although I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, says that this clause is wrong in principle, I respectfully disagree. I will explain why we think there is a gap in the law by looking first at the position with regard to dangerous rather than careless driving.
For dangerous driving, there are three main offences. The most serious—causing death by dangerous driving—has a maximum penalty of 14 years, to be increased to life by Clause 66. Secondly, there is causing serious injury by dangerous driving, which has a maximum penalty of five years. Thirdly and finally, there is the basic offence of dangerous driving—for example, where there is no injury. That has a maximum penalty of two years.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the Minister for his explanation, which is very interesting and largely reassuring. The one aspect of it that worries me is the comparison with the maximum six-month sentence for driving while disqualified, because that goes back to the points my noble friend Lord Marks was making: if I go out and drive while disqualified, I am doing so with a settled determination to do something I know is wrong. I have already been punished for doing something pretty bad, and I am building on that by ignoring the disqualification. Comparing that with the case of someone who goes out with no intention to be careless—because it is at the heart of carelessness that it comes on you unexpectedly—but does something wrong by mistake and someone is injured as a result, it seems to me that the mental state is far worse in the case of the person who goes out to drive while disqualified, however perfectly they manage to drive.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, of course I understand and to a certain extent accept that point; we have previously helpfully discussed it. What we try to do with the two-year maximum is find the appropriate level. One has to fit it between that six-month point and the five-year point for the reasons I have explained. Even if the noble Baroness does not accept the comparison with six years, it still obviously has to be below five years. The question is where we should put it. The central point is that maximum penalties are there for the worst imaginable case. The two years, therefore, is really for the worst imaginable case. I have sought to set out, in not too great length but clearly, why it is two years and, more importantly, what a maximum sentence means in this context and what the very limited circumstances are in which we would expect a maximum sentence to be imposed—not because the Government are telling the courts what to do but because, given the guidelines under which the courts already operate, it would be a very rare case to have a term of imprisonment or, certainly, a maximum term of two years. That is why I set it out earlier in the terms I did.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, and in particular to the Minister for his careful attention to the points that I have raised and the carefully worded assurances that he has given us in the past few minutes.
The worst imaginable case is the reason why I accept that there is a gap that needs to be looked at and filled, and this offence obviously addresses that gap. But one is faced with the mental element that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, have drawn attention to. It is that which makes it very difficult to accept that, even for the middle layer, there should be a sentence of imprisonment at all, in comparison with the many offences where there is a distinct mental element and a deliberate intention to flout the law—to disregard it, shrug your shoulders and go ahead anyway. It is not that kind of offence, which is why it is so important to signal, as the Minister has done, that it is only for the most extreme cases that a sentence of imprisonment for this kind of offence would really be appropriate.
Obviously, we must listen and wait for the Sentencing Council to set out the scales, and no doubt it will do so with great care. But, for the time being, what the Minister has said offers some reassurance, and I am extremely grateful for that. For those reasons, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Alcohol limits
(1) In section 11(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (interpretation of sections 4 to 10), the definition of “the prescribed limit” is amended as follows.(2) For paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) 22 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath,”.(3) For paragraph (b) substitute—“(b) 50 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood,”.(4) For paragraph (c) substitute—“(c) 67 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of urine,”.”
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 61, I shall speak also to Amendment 62. It is convenient to take the two together.
Since Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has kindly written, and I am grateful to him for sending a letter in which he set out statistics relating to the deaths and serious injuries arising from drinking and driving and for those drinking excessive alcohol. The numbers that he quoted are broadly similar to those which I ran in Committee. Reference is also made to the later figures which have come out for 2020, on which I shall not comment because they relate, in part, to four months of the year when we were in lockdown, when traffic levels fell and a whole range of other factors were quite different from normal life. I suppose the one saving grace of that period was that pedal cyclist casualty rates fell by 34%; one can only hope that that might continue in future.
What we have had is a decade of broadly the same number of deaths of people who have been killed by drunk drivers and probably a marginally increasing number of people being seriously injured in recent years. Is this to continue? Is the law right? The Government maintain that they want more evidence before they make changes. In his opening remarks in Committee, the Minister said:
“the Government take road safety very seriously and believe that any form of drink-driving is unacceptable and a serious road safety issue”.—[Official Report, 8/11/2021; col. 1535.]
I was surprised, but pleasantly pleased, to hear him say that.
I assume that the provisions are based on science and evidence. If so, could I ask the Government again, as I did way back in 2016, when I moved a Private Member’s Bill, whether they are prepared to present that science and put it in the public domain? As the Government know, clearly, that has relevance to the law of the land.
However, why do the Government continue to permit and give guidance that allows motorists and motorcyclists to drive with quite high levels of alcohol in their blood, especially when other countries now do not? In recent years, many have reduced their levels, but not the UK and Malta. If the Government really believe what I have just quoted from the noble Lord, why do they ignore the science that the more alcohol you drink, the more you risk a collision and possibly maiming or killing people on the scale that continues, as a decade’s data now shows?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 61. During the previous debate on alcohol limits, it was suggested that the evidence from Scotland did not support lowering the blood alcohol content limit from 80 to 50 mg per 100 mls.
Scotland changed its law in December 2014, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. I am most grateful to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for asking her officials to provide me with the raw data on alcohol levels in fatalities year by year. I am particularly grateful to those officials who patiently went through the number of fatalities with me. I have spent some time today looking at this and doing graphs; I am sure that the House will be glad that I cannot project Powerpoint here. Looking at the data, two years before and about two years after Scotland changed the law, I am not convinced that there is not a change. In other words, I think Scotland stayed pretty well static, but the number of deaths in England and Wales went up.
I have not had a statistician go through the data with me, so I put that caveat around it—and O-level maths was a long time ago. However, we know Scotland has an alcohol problem and a problem with a culture of drinking. When I was a GP in a poor area of Glasgow, I certainly found that I almost had to redefine alcoholism, because alcohol was completely endemic; it really was a problem, and I think it still is. The importance of the data that I have been looking at, and for which I am grateful, is that the law change brought a message of not drinking and driving, and the messaging is important.
Last week, a young woman I knew, a superb musician who taught and encouraged many other young people, was killed by being run over by an intoxicated lorry driver. The tragedy is compounded by the fact that people apparently knew that this driver was repeatedly intoxicated on drugs and alcohol. This has been pretty devastating for me and my family in the week before we came to this amendment, but I want to share it with the House, because I want people to understand that this is real. Young, completely innocent, people are being killed by someone with this powerful weapon in their hand: the keys, the steering wheel, the accelerator, et cetera.
In 2019 alone there were 130 fatalities where alcohol was detected on the driver of the car, motorcycle or other vehicle, some at very high levels. The purpose of a threshold is not to say that it is safe to drive below that threshold, because it is not: the threshold is the threshold for prosecution by the police, because that is the level at which the impaired reaction time and co-ordination become indefensible. That impairment, however, is not all or nothing: there is a gradient of deterioration. In some people, that deterioration happens at very low levels of blood alcohol—lower than the limit set in law. I would like to see the threshold set at 10 milligrams per hundred millilitres, but I know that that would not be acceptable to others.
Laws send powerful messages, so I ask the Government: who benefits from leaving intoxicated drivers to kill people? Who loses out if they cannot drink alcohol and hold the car keys? Are the Government in the grip of the alcohol industry? Is that why we have to accept fatalities and life-changing injuries, at enormous cost to health and social care, to education services, which have to cope with the bereaved children, and to our society overall? The current law is indefensible, and it is about time we changed it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure and a real responsibility to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and her hugely powerful speech. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, for introducing Amendment 61 in particular. I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She is much more of a lark and I more of an owl—so the timing works for this amendment.
I start by picking up on the account that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, gave the House of one death, and the fact that the Institute of Alcohol Studies estimated a few years ago that if the level was reduced to 50 micrograms, at least 25 deaths would be saved every year. It sounds like a number, and perhaps not an enormous number compared to the total number of deaths on the road. Think, however, about 25 individuals, like the single victim that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, just spoke about—their families, their work colleagues and the people they have helped—and ask yourself why we have the highest level of legal blood alcohol in Europe.
It is also worth picking up a point that the noble Baroness hinted at: the level we have now encourages people to think how much they can drink and still drive. I entered a search, “knowledge drink-drive units UK”, on a popular search engine—one of those that throws up a series of suggested questions based on what lots of other people have asked. The most popular question was “How many drinks can I have and drive in the UK?”, followed by “Can a man drink two pints and drive?”. That is where our current level is set—it invites people to push up to the limit.
Going back to my origins in Australia, in particular my time as a young journalist in rural Australia, I saw a great deal of drink-driving and its effects—the casualties and the families left behind. It is important, however, to stress the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which is that any level of drinking and driving is drink-driving. Figures from the road safety charity Brake show that in the 50 to 80 microgram range, you are six times more likely to be in a fatal crash than at zero micrograms, and between 20 and 50 micrograms you are three times more likely to be in a fatal crash. It is clear that we should be at zero or at such a low level that it is effectively the same as no drinks. Let us at least improve it.
Prior to this amendment, the Government said in 2018 that they were interested in looking at this issue and were thinking very seriously about it. That was three years ago. They might say that we have had a pandemic et cetera since then, but surely this is the time to take action to get us at least to a better place and to save lives like the one the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was just speaking about.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I will speak briefly to support my noble friend’s amendments and welcome the support that other noble Lords have given to him. I watched from the sidelines an issue that reminded me that the drink-drive legislation comes from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. It does not just apply if you are driving on a public road; it applies if you are on a private road, driving along a beach in a 4x4 or driving round a large field or estate that you own. The fact remains that if you are under the influence there and you injure somebody, the penalties are no different from those you would incur if you were on the road.
I reflect that it is a responsibility to drive a vehicle. It is no different to driving a train, piloting an aircraft or operating machinery in a port or a factory. Most companies nowadays are adamant that employees should not have alcohol in their bloodstream. We all accept that and think it is a very good idea—we do not want to be on a plane if the pilot is half drunk. Why, then, do we accept that people can go around with too high a blood-alcohol level when driving a car, which is just as lethal as a plane, a train or a piece of machinery?
I support these amendments. I would go further, as I think the noble Baroness would. This is not about fun. It is about driving safely what can be lethal machinery.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I was very pleased to add my name to Amendment 61. Alcohol has been a factor in road safety for as long as there have been roads, but we know a lot more about it now and there is worldwide evidence of what works. That evidence has been taken up across Europe and, indeed, across the world, by a large number of countries.
In Committee, I was surprised to hear doubt being cast on this issue on the basis of an apparently disappointing impact in Scotland of lowering the limit. However, this is a very misguided approach, casting doubt on the scientific evidence rather than looking to see, if it has not worked in Scotland in the way that was hoped, why. Indeed, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that there are sound grounds for saying that it has had an impact in Scotland.
There are two factors involved in all this: the level at which it is illegal to drive and the enforcement of that level. There is scientific evidence for the former and a debate to be had on the best ways of enforcement, which is why I did not sign the other amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. That does not mean that I do not agree with it, but I think that there is a serious debate to be had about how you enforce it most fairly. The story in Scotland is that enforcement has been weak. All social change requires a combination of legislation, enforcement and social debate. There has been proper legislation in Scotland and some social debate, but also a lack of enforcement.
I want to concentrate on the statistics. In Committee, I made the point that with Scotland remaining at a stable level and things getting worse in England and Wales, you could say that Scotland was a success story. I am very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has done her maths and confirmed that this speculation is possibly accurate. However, I want to turn to government analysis, because government statistics say that overall, 5% of casualties in reported road accidents in 2019 occurred when at least one driver or rider was over the limit. In Wales, the figure was 6.9%, which is very disturbingly high. In England, the figure was 5.1% and in Scotland it was 4.6%, despite the fact that Scotland has a lower limit, which you would expect to lead to a higher percentage of those involved in accidents being over the limit.
So the difference might be marginal, but at least these statistics show a positive impact in Scotland—and, remember, each percentage point represents lives saved. I can think of no reason why British drivers and riders should be different from those across the world. We need to modernise, and this should be a top priority for the review of road traffic legislation—but I will be supporting the noble Lord if he presses this to a vote.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I well remember the debates that we had on this issue shortly after Scotland decided to reduce the drink-driving limit in 2014. My recollection was that the Government were in effect saying, “We want to wait and see what the outcome is in Scotland”, while others were saying, “Why wait to see what has happened? Why not just proceed and lower the limit to the same level as Scotland has done?”—which, as has already been said, would be in line with most other countries. The Government held their line that they wanted to wait for evidence from Scotland and would then look at the matter. I may be wrong, but I think that there was a general feeling that if it had had an impact on reducing drink driving in Scotland, the pressure would have been quite considerable on the Government to move, as far as this country was concerned.
Not all the suggested difficulties that might have arisen from reducing the limit in Scotland actually materialised. My understanding is that there was not a significant impact on pubs and restaurants, which is one thing that was said. We did not end up, as I understand it, with the police and the courts in Scotland being overloaded. My understanding—although obviously I will stand corrected if I am wrong—is that the lower limit was generally accepted by the public in Scotland. But it did not have the impact that many of us hoped it would have as far as drink-driving in Scotland was concerned. As I understand it—once again I will stand corrected if I am wrong—there have been academic studies by Bath University and Glasgow University that rather confirm that situation.
This is clearly an important issue and it needs looking at. There must be some logic in saying that one would have expected that reducing the drink-drive limit would have an impact on the level of such driving, to the benefit of us all—but it does not seem so far that it has had a great effect on the number or severity of accidents in Scotland. Views have been expressed this evening about lack of enforcement and lack of publicity for the change as far as Scotland was concerned, but certainly Scotland is not providing a particularly robust evidence base at present, subject to further studies and a more robust evidence base—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to issues concerning the figures. We need to look at all the factors that might contribute to making people safer, including, although it is only one, the level of enforcement, and the culture.
The Government have said that they are putting out what they describe as a wide call for evidence on a number of road safety issues. It is supposed to be starting in a month’s time. I hope we will be told that this will be a major one, because the question is repeatedly asked why we have a much higher limit than virtually everywhere else, and that surely the logic would show that if you reduce the limit you ought to get a benefit from that in a reduction in drink-driving.
So we welcome the call for evidence that the Government are making. I know that I cannot speak for all my colleagues in saying this, but we accept that the evidence from Scotland is not showing that the change has had the effect many of us thought it would have. There may well be reasons for that and perhaps that needs further investigation and study, but our view is that, as long as the Government commit to look at this seriously in the review that is being undertaken and the call for evidence on a number of road safety issues, we should not vote on this issue immediately but wait for that further review. However, we have heard points raised quite validly about whether this review will go on and on, or whether it will be conducted within a reasonable timescale to enable decisions to be made that could involve further legislation.
The Government need to say what plans they have to bring down the level of drink-driving. One hopes that that will emerge from the review that is being undertaken and that the course of reducing the limit might well be part of it. In the meantime, we will wait for this call for evidence and the outcome of the review. We want some understanding that it will be conducted within a reasonably speedy timescale. In the meantime, we could not support the amendment that my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe has moved if he decided to push it to a vote.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I would have some concerns about Amendment 62 and what that might lead to in terms of random breath testing. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would have some thoughts about that.
I will say just one thing on the principal amendment. I thought what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said was very enlightening and I do not think we can totally ignore it. The Government’s slogan, on which they have spent a great deal of money, is “Don’t drink and drive”. It is not “Drink less and drive”. So I would have thought that anything that hammers that home could be only a good thing.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for again affording us the opportunity to debate the issue of drink-driving. I commend him for his long association with this particular subject; it well predates my time in this House. I know that, since the debate in Committee, he and other noble Lords have discussed this issue and other matters with the road safety Minister.
Let me again reassure the noble Lord—I fear I am at risk of repeating what I said in Committee—that the Government take road safety very seriously and believe that any form of drink-driving is unacceptable and a serious road safety issue. We are committed to tackling drink-driving and ensuring that those guilty of this offence are detected and appropriately punished. As I explained in Committee, our approach combines tough penalties and rigorous enforcement with our highly respected and effective THINK! campaigns. This approach reinforces the social unacceptability of drink-driving and reminds people of the serious consequences that drinking and driving can have on themselves and others.
Turning to Amendment 61, which seeks to change the prescribed limits, we remain to be persuaded that the proposed lowering of the limits would deliver the desired result. We believe that more work needs to be done to assess whether a reduction in the drink-drive limit would deliver the hoped-for benefits in improved road safety and a reduction in deaths and injuries on our roads. I think every noble Lord involved in this short debate has referenced Scotland. The evidence we have, following the change in the law in Scotland in 2014, does not suggest a material improvement in road safety in that jurisdiction, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, just noted.
Noble Lords will be aware of the findings from the studies by the University of Bath and the University of Glasgow that have also been referenced. The research by the University of Bath established that there has been no change across all types of accidents involving alcohol as a result of the introduction of a stricter drink-drive limit in Scotland. The independent evaluation by the University of Glasgow, published by the Lancet in December 2018, found that lowering the drink-drive limit was not associated with any reduction in total road traffic collision rates or serious and fatal road traffic collision rates, but that the change was associated with a small reduction in per capita alcohol consumption from on-trade alcohol sales.
I obviously cannot comment on enforcement. I have seen the statistics too, but I think the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is right: each percent represents lives saved, and we should be aware of that. Of course, the personal tragedies movingly mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also bring this debate into sharp relief.
The Government believe that our approach to any proposals for changing the law in this or indeed any other area must be evidence based. As things stand, the evidence does not support the case for lowering the drink-drive limit, although we of course keep this matter under review. But until there is a weight of evidence demonstrating that material enhancements to road safety would result from a lowering of the limit, the Government do not believe that the case for Amendment 61 has been made.
Turning to Amendment 62, which seeks to introduce random breath testing, it is again unclear to the Government if this would deliver the desired result of making the roads safer. As I indicated in response to a similar amendment in Committee, more work needs to be done to see whether there is any benefit resulting from introducing random breath testing. We would also need to examine carefully the equalities and human rights implications of doing so—an issue which I know is of concern to a number of noble Lords. I also take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, made on deterrents, particularly with regard to recent announcements in other topical areas on this subject, and I will take those back.
Having said all of that, I am going to repeat what my noble friend Lady Williams said earlier. My ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport are currently working on a call for evidence on parts of the Road Traffic Act. While details are still being worked up as to its scope, I am sure they are paying close attention to the points raised in this debate and others and will welcome suggestions on what issues could be tackled. Once the call for evidence is concluded, we would welcome submissions from all interested parties, including noble Lords and Members of the other place. I obviously cannot give commitments on how long this will take, but I hope, having heard the debate in this House, that it will be speedy.
In conclusion, we need more evidence to justify the changes to road traffic legislation proposed in these two amendments. To this end, as I mentioned, the department is considering that call for evidence. I would therefore like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, to be patient for a little while longer. In the meantime, I hope he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, can he just confirm, in the light of the comments he has made, that the consultation will consider lowering the limit below 50 down to 10 or 20, which would allow for what is termed “Grandma’s sherry trifle”, served up at a weekend, but would not —I repeat not—allow for a glass of an alcoholic beverage if you are holding the car keys? It may well be that 50 is completely the wrong level because it gives mixed messages.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I cannot give that assurance but, as I say, the scope of the consultation is still being worked up. As I have also said, once the call for evidence is concluded we would welcome submissions from all interested parties, so I am sure that that can be part of the scope.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have participated in the debate and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for the work that she has done. I first express my sympathy about the experience that she has had. I am grateful to others who have spoken in support. I will not go on at length at this time of night, but I have two Front Benchers who are not happy about what I am seeking—or are certainly not supporting it.
My real concern is that we have been at this for years. I am offered, along with others, a review. But if the Scottish evidence is no different, we are in a Catch-22 situation where the Government will say, “The evidence from Scotland is not satisfactory from our point of view, and therefore we will make no change”. Personally, I am very much in the camp with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and others who would like to see an even lower limit such as the Swedish one of 20. It cannot be nil, because the body itself generates a degree of alcohol that would always register, so for me personally it would be 20, but I have no evidence—other than going to Sweden and bringing it back—that will persuade the Minister. He is hooked on Scotland and what has happened. Changes need to be made in Scotland to enforce the limit more, given the problems encountered there.
So, I do not see a great deal of hope in withdrawing and waiting for this review, when there is no guarantee that the Government will take a different position—namely, that which I started on: the science is that if you drink, your risk of a collision goes up the more you drink. That is a fact of life and the scientists prove it, yet we go in a different direction and have a lead and guidance from the Government which allows people to drink and drive more than in any country in Europe, bar Malta. I believe it is wrong. I think that many Ministers believe it is wrong, and maybe even our Front Bench think it is wrong. So tonight, although I regret that it is late and I will keep noble Lords longer, I will not withdraw my amendment; I wish to test the mood of the House.