House of Commons
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 3 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, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mike Freer)
The refreshed export strategy, launched in November, focuses on the barriers to trade faced by small and medium-sized enterprises, using targeted interventions that help businesses at every stage of their exporting journey. Our newly unified Export Support Service provides a single point of contact for businesses trading with Europe, as one of the central elements of the strategy.
Sarah Green
After finally getting to grips with last year’s contradictory guidance on trading with the European Union, one family-run business in Chesham has immediately come up against problems with the new rules introduced this month. They tell me that
“we would love to do it all absolutely correctly”,
but that nobody will tell them what correctly is. Will the Minister support the thousands of UK businesses struggling to trade with Europe by clarifying the Government’s new rules, and will he work with colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to reopen and expand the SME Brexit support fund?
Mike Freer
The ESS is there to help traders who are struggling with elements of trading with Europe and it will continue to do so. It is available online and by telephone, but if the hon. Lady would like me to meet her constituents, I would be more than happy to do so.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Given the growing list of companies setting out the real and obvious difficulties they are facing in accessing markets in Europe, and given the many very practical suggestions that business groups have put forward to the Government in recent weeks, from negotiating a veterinary agreement and making progress on mutual recognition, to even just getting agreement on shared customs advice, when are Ministers going to try a bit harder to help businesses make Brexit work?
Mike Freer
As far as I know, we have suggested solutions and are waiting for the EU to respond.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Penny Mordaunt)
We have made good progress in negotiations and we hope to have concluded them by the end of this year.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he is doing to champion his local businesses. He is right: it is an £8.4 trillion market that we are opening up. However, this is about not only the economic benefits, but the benefits of those closer trading ties to enable people to work on problems that we are all facing around the world, in tech, the environment, healthcare and other sectors. That has got to be good for the progress of humanity as well.
Mary Robinson
Many people in Cheadle work in the tech sector, where jobs in digital, HealthTech and FinTech provide high-skilled, well-paid work. Given the high rate of northern unicorn start-ups, does my right hon. Friend agree that new trading partnerships can open up markets for future growth and for levelling up in the north?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the pay for people working in those sectors is about 50% higher than the UK average, so the more jobs we can create in those growth sectors, the better. I thank her for the work she is doing to champion her local businesses and expand those opportunities for her constituents.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
For every £490 of Brexit damage, CPTPP should recover about £8 of it, but that is at risk if the UK patent attorneys’ membership of the European Patent Organisation is undermined or removed. At the moment, UK patent attorneys, who represent about a fifth of the patent attorneys in Europe, deal with a third of the patents of Europe. What assessment has been made by the Government of the damage that could be done to them through CPTPP and will that assessment be published so that they will know?
Penny Mordaunt
CPTPP is not doing damage and our accession to it is opening up markets. I work closely with all kinds of professional bodies, including those looking at patents, intellectual property and so forth. These are key sectors where we want to break down barriers to trade. As well as free trade agreements, we are looking, as the hon. Gentleman will know, at memorandums of understanding not only with countries across the world, but with states in the United States, to enable those non-tariff barriers to trade to be removed. We want to work with the EU. I know that the hon. Gentleman has not come to terms with the fact that we have left the EU and that we are looking to expand our trading opportunities. Some 99.9% of the businesses in his constituency that export will benefit from CPTPP, and I look forward to the day when he welcomes that.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The national food strategy published last year said that to allow lower environmental and welfare standards in future trade deals would represent
“an extraordinary failure of joined-up thinking”,
yet that seems to be exactly the Government’s approach. As we await the Government’s White Paper in response to the national food strategy, what discussions is the Minister having with colleagues in other Departments to make sure that in that White Paper we firmly pin down that we will not accept lower standards?
Penny Mordaunt
As I have alluded to, as well as the economic benefits that we hope trade agreements will bring, they are about highlighting the fantastic food safety, quality and welfare standards of our local produce and are an opportunity to champion that. For example, on my recent visit to the United States I met the agriculture commissioners of every state and talked about the practices and values that sit behind what we do here in the UK. The United States is interested in that and wants to reform some of its practices. I know that the hon. Lady is passionate about this agenda and hope she will support us in ours.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Mr Speaker
We have a slight problem. Will the Secretary of State answer the question? I will then go to the Opposition spokesperson.
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I visited India last week to launch negotiations with my counterpart, Minister Goyal, for an ambitious free trade deal. India is one of the world’s biggest and fastest-growing economies and is home to more than a billion consumers, with a growing middle class eager to buy the goods and services that our country excels in. Securing a world-class FTA with India will deliver benefits for people across all four nations of the UK.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
We know that India does not cede access to its markets easily and that one of its top demands in any trade deal will be generous visa concessions for Indian citizens to come to the UK. Recent press reports indicate that although the Secretary of State would consider such terms, the Home Secretary would oppose them. Will the Secretary of State clarify the Government’s negotiating position and what their red lines will be?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
From services and digital to investment and intellectual property, we are aiming for a broad and ambitious deal with India that delivers for both businesses and consumers alike. The first round of negotiations started this week and we hope the second round of talks will be in March, at which point we will have the opportunity to shape and see the scope of the FTA that both countries want to work towards. We will confirm that at an appropriate time as the negotiations progress. We very much hope to reach a mutually beneficial agreement by the end of this year.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Scotch whisky exports to India, the world’s largest whisky market, have declined dramatically since 2019. A year on from Brexit, the Government can no longer deflect to the EU for their failure to deal with the eye-watering 150% tariffs that apply to Scotch whisky sales to India. Will the Secretary of State confirm today that her Government will finally make the removal of those tariffs a priority?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As the hon. Gentleman says, British products such as Scotch whisky and cars currently face substantial barriers to trade in the form of tariffs of well over 100% on their import into India. The reduction of tariff barriers would be a golden opportunity for UK exporters and, indeed, slash tens of millions of pounds off costs. We will put forward our position in a number of areas, including in respect of Scotch whisky, in the first round of negotiations in the next two weeks. We will make clear the issues that are important to us so that we can achieve a successful, mutually beneficial FTA for all sides.
Drew Hendry
The whisky industry is used to dealing with weights and measures, but it has been waiting for too long for measures from this Government. Will the Secretary of State confirm what target has been set for tariff reduction for Scotch whisky? Is it half, more than half or—what the industry needs—the complete removal of that 150% tariff? What is her measure of success?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Gentleman would be surprised if I were to disclose the details of my negotiations mandate at this point, but I think I have already been clear—I will say it again—that it is important that the trade deal is mutually beneficial, and the reduction of barriers to trade such as tariffs will be an important point of the UK’s negotiating mandate.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
A free trade agreement with India would be a wonderful thing, but these agreements take a lot of negotiation and a lot of negotiators. When we were in the EU, we lost all our trade negotiators and we have had to build up the Department from scratch. How many free trade negotiators does my right hon. Friend have in her Department? Are there enough or do we need more?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We have a fantastic team of now extremely experienced negotiators. The team who are now focused on the India FTA not only bring with them a wealth of experience from Whitehall, but are experts drawn from a number of fields. We will be cracking on with these discussions, which will be virtual for the first two weeks, because of the restrictions in India, after which we hope to be able negotiate face to face. The teams—for instance those who worked on the Australia free trade deal—work 24/7, or whatever is required through virtual discussions. We will continue to do that, and we have a fantastic team leading the way.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Penny Mordaunt)
We have had five productive rounds of negotiations to date and have agreed a significant proportion of the legal text across multiple chapters.
Alex Cunningham
The 2018 Tory manifesto on which the Minister stood said that a trade agreement with the US would be completed by the end of 2022, but the agreement is shrouded in secrecy. As the Secretary of State said, she toured the US last month, playing up what she described as a “massive opportunity”. Can the Minister advise us at what stage the negotiations are now, and confirm that the promise to the electorate will be fulfilled and a deal put before this House by the end of the year?
Penny Mordaunt
I have just outlined where we are to date in terms of how much has been written and agreed to. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not congratulate my right hon. Friend on having started discussions on section 232 and the announcement that was made yesterday by the Administration. He will know that we are concurrently negotiating memorandums of understanding with states. These things can only be done at state level; I am talking about regulated and regulator discussions, mutual recognition of qualifications and so forth, which will reduce massively the cost of doing business with the United States. We are making good progress on that twin-track approach. If he thinks that we should move a little faster, perhaps he might like to say that to the US Administration.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The UK signed its first “from scratch” free trade agreement with Australia on 16 December 2021. The deal is expected to increase trade with Australia by 53%. Both countries have committed to removing tariffs on a vast array of popular products, which can now be more easily traded, including eliminating tariffs on 100% of UK exports. This deal is tailored to British strengths, providing benefits for our world-class services industry, unprecedented new opportunities for UK professionals abroad, and for trading digitally.
Virginia Crosbie
The Australian high commissioner is hosting a gala dinner on Ynys Môn on 18 February to help raise much-needed funds for the Anglesey Agricultural Society. How is the Minister working to help my island farmers and businesses increase trade with Australia?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
First, I would like to wish the Anglesey Agricultural Society good luck with the Anglesey show, which I understand is in August. I look forward to an invitation and an excuse to pay a visit.
The UK-Australia trade deal could boost Wales’s economy by around £60 million. Welsh farmers will benefit from the opportunities to sell their produce in Australia, and Welsh manufacturers could benefit from new procurement opportunities and enhanced business mobility provisions. Many small businesses will also enjoy greater access to Australia.
David Duguid
Will my right hon. Friend provide a specific description of the protections and safeguards that are in place for farmers, particularly in Scotland, and what recent engagement her Department has had with National Farmers Union Scotland and other Scottish food production trade bodies?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The UK has secured a range of measures to safeguard our farmers, including tariff-rate quotas for a number of sensitive agricultural products, product-specific safeguards for beef and sheep meat, and a general bilateral safeguard mechanism providing a temporary safety net if an industry faces serious injury from increased imports as a direct consequence of the agreement. The NFU, Salmon Scotland and the Scotch Whisky Association are trade advisory group members which were consulted throughout negotiations and regular meetings, and we will continue to engage with the NFU and other Scottish agricultural bodies to understand the impact on the industry.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Following on from that, the Government’s own impact assessment shows a £94 million hit to farming, forestry and fishing sectors, and a £225 million hit to the semi-processed food industry. The Government have also negotiated first-year tariff-free allowances of a 6,000% increase on Australian-imported beef to the UK. Can the Secretary of State outline what conversations that she has had with the NFU, specifically about the impact of that deal on British agriculture?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We have continual and regular discussions with the NFU and other agriculture bodies. As I have just said, they have been integrally involved in the discussions all the way through, and I know that the ministerial team will continue to meet them. I believe that my Minister responsible for exports will be having a meeting with them next week.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Unseemly haste in securing as many free trade deals as quickly as possible and at massive expense in pursuit of a press release and a picture with some TimTams is not the optimal trade policy that people deserve. Scotland’s farming and fishing sectors are paying the price for this public relations jamboree masquerading as trade policy. The UK Government’s own figures show domestic agriculture, forestry and fishing will suffer a £94 million hit just from the Australia deal. Scottish producers saw established routes to EU markets needlessly frustrated by this UK Government’s Brexit dogma. Will the Minister therefore apologise to Scotland’s economy?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I am disappointed that moving to having new free trade agreements with some of the great economies of the world is considered unseemly haste. We are working at pace and alongside all our UK businesses with a clear and mandated consultation process to ensure that we are pitching for the areas of business in which our businesses want to see growth. The EU market continues to be there under our fantastic markets. Part of the work that the Export Support Service is doing is to ensure that those who already export can do so more easily and indeed that, for those who have not yet considered exporting to the EU, the opportunities and the support services are there to assist them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In 2019-20, trade in goods and services between Australia and the UK was valued at £20.1 billion. Currently, the trade in meat products between the two countries is very small. Specifically, I want to ask this: what steps has the Minister taken to ensure that there is more focus on the trade of meat produce from the UK to Australia, to the advantage of people and farmers in Northern Ireland?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
One of the new tools in our armoury will be the trade and agriculture commissioners—experts who will be there to help UK businesses that want to take their products into new markets, including Australia. I have no doubt at all that, just as we enjoy Australian wine, we will have the opportunity to see Northern Ireland meat on the plates of the Australians.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
Free trade agreements should be fair to both partners. The Australian FTA—dare I say it, like the Ashes cricket series—is a bit one-sided in favour of Australia. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the farmers in Cumbria and across the UK that the safeguard mechanisms in the agreement will have teeth? For instance, if the Australian meat market were to pivot away from Asia towards Europe, would the tariff rate quota mechanism be effective in turning down the supply of meat so that our fantastic British farmers are not undermined?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Yes, I am confident that the safeguards we have brought in, which I am happy to set out again, will support the most sensitive parts of the UK farming community. They include a general bilateral safeguard mechanism that provides a safety net for all those products, staged liberalisation, tariff rate quotas and specific safeguards for beef and sheep meat, which will be there to support fantastic British produce. Again, I encourage everyone to sing loudly about how fantastic our British produce is. It is eaten from plates across the UK and around the world. We will continue to see that finest produce enjoyed by all.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Secretary of State for not mentioning the cricket.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I was pleased to meet virtually with the US Secretary of Commerce, Gina Raimondo, yesterday to discuss the application of US section 232 tariffs. As set out in our joint statement, which was published last night, the US has agreed to commence negotiations with the UK. I welcome that positive development, and I will push for a deal that is right for the UK. I will continue to work closely with industry throughout the negotiations. The UK accounts for less than 1% of US steel and aluminium imports in volume terms, so UK imports do not affect the viability or the national security of the US steel or aluminium industries.
Sir Mark Hendrick
The International Trade Secretary will recall the Hallowe’en agreement from last year, when the US gave tariff-free access to the EU for steel and aluminium exports from the beginning of this year. That means that the EU will now have a 25% price advantage over UK steel and aluminium exports to the US. In fact, any UK steel, even if worked on in the EU, will still attract tariffs in the US. Is that what the Prime Minister meant when said he said Brexit was about taking back control?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I said, it is a Government priority to secure a good deal and ensure that we find the right way forward to get out of the section 232 tariffs, which we are doing at pace. The US Secretary of State for Commerce and I will work to ensure that that imbalance is removed as quickly as possible.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
At the start of last month, I wrote to the Secretary of State about those steel tariffs, which have been in place since 2018 and have already done great damage. In 2017, exports of steel and aluminium to the United States were more than 350,000 tonnes. In 2020, that had fallen to 200,000 tonnes. The situation is urgent, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) set out, the EU gained a competitive advantage on new year’s day, with the US having lifted tariffs for EU member states but not the UK. I welcome the opening of those negotiations, but will the Secretary of State confirm that in advance of those talks the Prime Minister raised the issue personally with President Biden?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I assure the House that I have been extremely robust in moving the issue along since coming into post. I am pleased that we were able to launch these negotiations yesterday. It is important that we sort out and remove those unnecessary and burdensome tariffs on the UK. The UK steel and aluminium industries are not a threat to the US ones. We were working closely at every level to ensure that we find a solution as quickly as possible.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The lifting of the tariffs is vital for jobs and livelihoods across the country, yet the Secretary of State could not confirm that the Prime Minister has raised the issue with President Biden. The truth is that the Prime Minister has been more interested in saving his own job than in saving jobs in the steel sector. The longer the tariffs remain in place, the more damage the Government allow to happen to our steel sector, a foundational industry that is vital for our economy. If the Secretary of State cannot even confirm that the Prime Minister has picked up the phone to the US President about that, are people not right to conclude that the Prime Minister is focused on saving himself and does not care about steelworkers’ jobs?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I hope that the right hon. Member will assist us in the negotiations by speaking to their counterparts and indeed all those across the US who want the tariffs removed. I reiterate that at every level of the UK Government we have raised the issue with the US, and we are therefore at the point where we are now starting negotiations, which will move at pace. I look forward to his assisting us to ensure a successful outcome.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
The Department continues to work hard to boost prosperity in every corner of our country, helping businesses export, securing investment, negotiating free trade agreements, bulldozing trade barriers and championing free trade. Just last week, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade said, we launched negotiations with India, an economy of 1.4 billion people worth £2 trillion. Our consultation on an FTA with the Gulf Co-operation Council closed last week, and I look forward to launching those negotiations soon. We continue to break through market access barriers. In 2020-21 alone, we resolved more than 200 barriers across 74 countries.
Cherilyn Mackrory
I thank the Minister for his answer. Will my hon. Friend expand on how businesses in Truro and Falmouth, as well as in wider Cornwall, can take advantage of free trade deals that the Government hope to secure in 2022, so that my constituents can reap the rewards and benefits that they will bring?
Mr Jayawardena
My hon. Friend is a great champion of businesses in Truro and Falmouth. The south-west is already benefiting from the Department’s work and will continue to do so. A deal with India would benefit the more than 600 west country businesses that exported more than £20 million of goods to India in 2020, and I am sure many more will do so in the future. Food and drink producers—even those that use imported ingredients—now qualify for nil tariffs in a deal with Australia, which is good news for fans of Cornish pasties down under.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Penny Mordaunt)
We continue to keep our policy response under close review and are working with international partners to hold China to account for any violation of human rights.
Afzal Khan
China is the largest cotton producer in the world, with 84% of cotton coming from the Xinjiang region. The region also produces 45% of the world’s supply of the key component in solar panels, polysilicon, which means that the supply chains are tainted with forced Uyghur labour. In a response given in the other place, the Government outlined that they would
“continue to pursue a positive economic relationship with China and…increase trade with China.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 October 2021; Vol. 815, c. 252.]
In light of the genocide against the Uyghur Muslims, does the Minister think that is an acceptable approach, and will the Minister now follow in the footsteps of the US and ban imports from China’s Xinjiang region?
Penny Mordaunt
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. The more we can talk about it, keep it on our agenda and raise the profile of such matters consistently, the more helpful it is. We are looking at what other nations are doing and we keep our policies under review. He is right: we need a mix of targeted responses against states and also companies that have those practices. We have a good track record on combating modern slavery and being a global leader in this field, but we also need the transparency and tools for consumers and customers of those businesses to find other suppliers if they have concerns. We will keep the matter under review, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we take those matters very seriously.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Nothing in the UK-Australia or UK-New Zealand agreements prevents the UK from reaching a veterinary agreement with the EU. Our agreements allow the UK to co-operate with both Australia and New Zealand and with the EU to avoid unnecessary sanitary and phytosanitary barriers to trade in agrifood, without constraining the UK’s right to regulate in those areas. We are open to discussions with the EU on additional steps to further reduce trade frictions.
Stephen Farry
The European Union will remain the UK’s largest export market for the foreseeable future, so the priority must be to remove all remaining non-tariff barriers, especially to help our UK agrifood exporters, and also to address some of the tensions around the Northern Ireland protocol. Does the Minister recognise that other free trade agreements risk restricting the nature of any EU veterinary agreement to one that is more limited and based around equivalence, rather than a more comprehensive one based on alignment? That will restrict our ability to trade with the EU to the maximum potential in the future.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We are clear that we want goods to be able to travel from Great Britain to Northern Ireland without unnecessary barriers, and the Government continue to be in intense discussions with the EU with the aim of delivering those significant changes to the protocol, so that there should be a green channel for goods in and out of Northern Ireland and no further checks or documentation for goods moving between GB and Northern Ireland. This is an important part of that wider process, and our trade agreements with the rest of the world will continue to champion Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
Since leaving the EU, the United Kingdom has secured trade agreements with 70 non-EU countries, in addition to the deal with the EU. Many of those deals were negotiated to secure continuity of trade, and they cover 99% of the trade under trade agreements we were subject to when we were also subject to the diktats of the EU, which I am sure is not what the Labour party is advocating today.
Dr Huq
I listened to what Mr Speaker said—I mean the Minister—[Interruption.] Of course we always listen to everything Mr Speaker says. The Minister’s description does not tally with the experience of my constituent, Danny Hodgson, whose clothes retail business Rivet & Hide made the Financial Times exactly a year ago because of the crippling new additional duties he faces in importing from the EU. This time it is even worse, because he is finding that all the goods coming in from Japan are attracting a 12% levy. That is slapped on erroneously and routinely seven out of 10 times, I think, and it is a bureaucratic, red tape, bookkeeping nightmare for him. Will the Government look into the case? They are meant to be the party of small and medium-sized enterprises and low tax, and they have trashed their reputation for all that. Can the Government urgently help my constituent please?
Mr Jayawardena
I am delighted that the hon. Lady recognises that this party is the party of business. That is great news and I welcome her remarks. She references a business that trades with Japan, but I note that she did not vote for the deal with Japan nor the deals with Canada, Singapore or even the EU. Of course we will happily look at any business that she wishes to raise with me in writing, but I point out that this party is the party of business. We are the party that is securing the trade deals that will benefit businesses across our country.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mike Freer)
In 2021, the DIT launched a new exports campaign: “Made in the UK, Sold to the World”. The campaign, in line with our refreshed export strategy, celebrates the quality of the UK manufacturing sector and its potential to export worldwide. We are reaching out to businesses across all UK regions and nations to create opportunities for our manufacturers.
Paul Howell
I thank the Minister for his answer. I recently had the pleasure of visiting Gestamp on the industrial estate in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency. It supplies thousands of subframes every day to motor manufacturers worldwide, but it has outlined to me concerns that have been raised with it by European companies about the rules of origin and potential tariffs on goods supplied from the UK. Will the Minister reassure Gestamp that it is absolutely safe for European businesses to trade with British companies and that our trade deal with the EU will not result in future tariffs? I encourage him to find time in his diary to visit that fantastic business.
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend fights hard for his constituency. I am pleased to reiterate that the trade and co-operation agreement ensures that businesses in every part of the UK can continue to sell to their customers in the EU. We successfully negotiated a zero tariff, zero quota trade deal, which means that goods traded between our markets can qualify for zero tariff trade as long as they meet the rules of origin requirements set out in the TCA. We have secured modern and appropriate product-specific rules of origin that are tailored to the needs of UK business, including innovative rules for the automotive sector. I am happy to join him in visiting the company.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
In addition to negotiating FTAs, as I have said, we are cutting through red tape and opening markets for British business around the world. Last year, we resolved over 200 barriers across 74 countries, which was an increase of 20% on the previous year—[Interruption.] I am delighted that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is getting so excited about that success. We have secured British poultry market access in Japan, estimated by industry to be worth up to £13 million a year, and we have lifted the decades-long ban on British lamb exports to the United States, estimated by industry to be worth £37 million over the next five years.
Mark Eastwood
Since being appointed the trade envoy to Pakistan, I have encountered a number of issues that hinder potential trade opportunities such as exporting meat and poultry to help our farmers and importing high quality granite and marble that is important to the UK burial industry, and difficulties for businesses gaining access to UK Export Finance. Will the Minister outline what he is doing to overcome those and other barriers so that trade can be open not just to Pakistan but across the globe?
Mr Jayawardena
I thank my hon. Friend for his great work as trade envoy to Pakistan. We are very aware of the challenges to exports in the farming sector posed by costly market access barriers around the world, which is why we are working closely with our counterparts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and engaging trading partners to remove them where possible, as I have outlined, so that Great British meat and produce can be enjoyed all around the world.
My hon. Friend mentioned UKEF, which has a £1.5 billion risk appetite to support exports in Pakistan with a specialist team on hand to discuss options available to British businesses of all sizes. He will also know that we will soon launch our developing countries trading scheme, which will look to further simplify trading arrangements with developing countries, including Pakistan.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
In the interests of peace and harmony, I shall refrain from dwelling on the Ashes cricket series.
Small businesses are simply less likely to be able to afford the consultants, lawyers, trade experts and advisers necessary to navigate the complexities of the hard Brexit customs checks that this Government insisted on. Despite that, the Government have now closed the SME Brexit support fund and not replaced it, although a Channel 4 investigation found that 26% of SMEs that trade with the EU are now considering moving some of their European operations outside the UK, while 16% said they had already done so. A Lords report published in December said it is absolutely vital that it is reopened with wider eligibility criteria, and the Federation of Small Businesses has also been calling for that for months. Will the Minister listen to the small business experts?
Mr Jayawardena
First, I am sure the hon. Member would want to direct all businesses to our export support service, which will help British businesses get the answers to the practical questions they may have about exporting to Europe, accessing cross-Government information and support all in one place. She will be pleased to know that the statistics actually show that monthly exports to the EU are now £13.6 billion, which is 12% higher than average exports in 2020. That shows that significant progress is being made in our exports from businesses of all sizes up and down our country.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Official statistics up to end of November last year show that UK trade in goods with the EU has seen three consecutive monthly increases, with November showing an increase of nearly 3%. Goods trade with the EU is now above average levels for 2020, although still below 2019 levels. UK trade in goods with non-EU countries is at record monthly levels, with recent increases due to the high fuel prices we are seeing across the globe. UK trade in services with EU and non-EU countries continues to show small increases as covid restrictions on the movement of people ease, but trade remains below pre-covid levels.
Marion Fellows
Ireland has seen goods imports from Great Britain drop by more than a fifth since Brexit. Ireland has also, in that time, increased its goods exports to GB by more than 20%, and imports from Northern Ireland to the Republic jumped by more than 64%. Is it not the case that, by becoming independent, Scots will open the gate to 27 other markets and that Scotland can access that bridge to economic prosperity, as trade levels in the Republic and Northern Ireland are proving to us now?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
On this side of the House, we continue to know that the Union is the strongest way that Scottish businesses can continue to export. Some 75% of exports are to the rest of the United Kingdom, and we want to make sure that, as well as trading with all of us, they have the opportunities our free trade agreements will make and find that selling their fantastic goods and services across the world becomes easier. However, we continue to say that the best way for Scottish businesses to do that is to stay within the UK.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Last week at Expo in Dubai, I was struck by the number of trade reps and investors from across the Gulf who told us just how much easier they have found doing business visits to London in recent months compared with other cities internationally. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that such remarks underline just how important it was for us as a Government, from a trade and investment perspective, to get right those big decisions about the vaccine roll-out and relaxing the covid restrictions to give us a head start as the international trading community recovers from covid?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Prime Minister has taken some incredibly tough decisions, and in doing so has made sure that our economy has stayed open and our population has remained safe. We have been world leading not only in vaccine production, but in distribution, so ensuring that the trade and enterprise so vital to our constituents and across the world supports healthy economies and, indeed, makes sure that everybody is in as good health as possible. It is lovely to hear those messages. What I hear as I travel around the world is that the UK is open for business, and we are seeing the benefits of that across the piece.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Purchasing managers index information shows that in December 2020 the United Kingdom was the only economy in the entire western world to see a fall in exports. Who is responsible for that?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
To go back to my earlier point, as we see markets open up and opportunities for amazing UK businesses to discover not only the markets some are in already but new markets, the export support service and the team at the DIT stand ready to support all those who want to expand and share the UK’s amazing goods and services with the rest of the world. “Made in the UK, Sold to the World” is our campaign motto, and that is what we want to support everybody to share and get out there.
Topical Questions
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The Department’s five-star year 2022 has begun at pace with the launch of our India free trade agreement negotiations, the signing of the sovereign investment partnership with Oman, discussions with Brazil towards an economic trade partnership, the launch of our new and improved trade show programme, and the virtual African investment summit taking place today. As I mentioned earlier, yesterday I met with US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo to start negotiations with the US on the section 232 tariffs. These have cost the steel industry over £60 million per year; I am firmly pressing for their express removal and am confident we can now make fast progress towards this to ensure that trade works in the interests of all UK businesses and workers.
Sir Mark Hendrick
Further to my earlier question with regard to US steel tariffs and section 232, what are the chances of our getting those tariffs lifted, given that the Prime Minister is playing fast and loose with security policy on Northern Ireland, particularly through doing his best to trash the Northern Ireland protocol?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We will be pushing for a deal that is right for the UK steel industry and I am confident that the long-standing alliance between the UK and the US, built on a rich history of shared values and free and fair trade, will ensure that the negotiating outcomes are what we need for UK industry. The UK and the US work together across the piece in so many difficult areas at the moment and I hope that those in all parts of the House will continue to give support as we take on some of those challenging security issues.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mike Freer)
My hon. Friend raises an important point. A key challenge facing the UK and other major exporters is shipping container costs, and there is ongoing engagement across Government, including the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Competition and Markets Authority and the Department for Transport, to ensure that we understand the background causes of price rises and their impacts, such as by contacting the shipping lines and engaging with international partners where necessary to address the key issue of supply lines that my hon. Friend raised.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Given the Government’s underwhelming performance on trade to date, even the small gains from joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership would be welcome, but one issue that the previous Secretary of State always ducked was China’s interest. Given President Xi’s reaffirmation on Monday of China’s desire to join the CPTPP, can the Secretary of State clarify whether Britain would have the right to veto China’s accession?
Mike Freer
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. These issues are very complex, but what I will say is that we are first in the queue to join CPTTP, and after that all things are up for review.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend raises an important point, particularly for her constituency, and I can give the assurance that the Government will continue to work closely with Seafish and the Shellfish Association of Great Britain to encourage their members to look at new markets and drive awareness of UK seafood in international markets. We have a network of trade advisers in the UK and overseas who can support the sector to trade successfully, and I am happy to put any of her businesses in contact with them.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
In December, the Government snuck through a change to the UK’s arms export rules, and charities such as Oxfam have warned that these changes will lessen transparency over arms exports and could see UK arms being used against civilians such as those in Yemen. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that UK arms exports are not used to commit breaches of international humanitarian law?
The Minister for Trade Policy (Penny Mordaunt)
The Government have not “snuck through” such changes. We are very open and transparent about the policies that sit behind our very good arms export controls, which are also scrutinised by this House. The Department is due to meet a number of stakeholders; I can check whether Oxfam is part of that. We meet regularly to discuss these issues. We have one of the best arms export regimes in the world; it is flexible and changes as situations change. The hon. Lady will know that we recently made some new changes because of what is happening in parts of the world. She should be confident in what we are doing on that.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend raises what is a vital point in a global economy. The Government are carrying out a review of the UK’s international and domestic approach to semiconductor supply chains. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is leading that review, supported by the Department for International Trade. We also support growth in the UK semiconductor sector by driving investment—for example, by promoting the world-leading compound semiconductor cluster in south Wales, as part of our high potential opportunities programme. If my hon. Friend would care to write to the Department, we will of course take up the constituency issue.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I have outlined today, I am pleased that yesterday we were able to formally launch our negotiations with the US to find a solution to the section 232 tariffs, which have been unreasonably imposed on the UK for a number of years. The EU quantum of steel was of importance to the US, which wanted to start those negotiations because the impacts on both sides were great. We are very pleased that the UK is now able to progress on what will be a very important impact, and release some of the pressures on our excellent steel industry.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Mike Freer
The UK-Australia free trade agreement could boost Scotland’s economy by about £120 million. The deal will help boost Scottish exports by removing tariffs of up to 5% on Scotch whisky and through additional commitments to release goods from customs quickly. Scotland’s services firms will also benefit from access to billions of pounds’ worth of Australian Government contracts. Staff will be able to travel for work with easier access to temporary entry visas.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Every free trade agreement is negotiated in relation to the other country and we will continue to work with those as we build these, to look at how we best bring together free trade agreements that will be beneficial to UK businesses and consumers.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Last Friday, along with a number of local businesses, I took part in a meeting of the parliamentary export programme for my constituency businesses. What additional initiatives do Ministers have to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, to look at and engage in the export market?
Mike Freer
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support of the parliamentary export scheme. It is about to be refreshed and relaunched so that we can provide additional support to any of our parliamentary colleagues who wish to engage with companies in their constituency about exports. I ask him to hold fire while we relaunch it, and he will be one of the first I contact.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I said, the negotiations with our Indian counterparts have just begun. We will not discuss the details of the negotiations while they are going on, but I have been very clear with the Indians and through our consultation process that we will want to see movement on issues such as high tariffs on some of our iconic UK products.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
My apologies for not being here earlier, Mr Speaker. Clearly, the start of the talks with our friends in India is extremely welcome news, particularly for Scotch whisky exporters, who could gain tremendously. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the projected timetable, and will she publish some objectives in relation to what we are attempting to achieve with our friends in India?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Following our discussions last week, Minister Goyal and I were very clear that we want our negotiating teams to crack on and get a clear picture of the areas that we want to bring together in our free trade agreement with India. We have set our negotiators an initial target to see whether we can bring this to a conclusion at the end of this year or in early 2023.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
British wine traders have expressed concern that the Chancellor’s reforms to alcohol duty might lead to higher prices and less choice in wine. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with her Cabinet colleagues about the impact of these reforms on industry’s ability to trade effectively?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The Chancellor brought in duty reforms that are focused on health: the higher the amount of alcohol, the higher the tariff. Interestingly, as I have been travelling the world, I have mentioned the policy to other countries, and they see it as a really intelligent way to ensure that they balance the opportunities from the healthy management of alcohol drinking and the opportunities that fantastic producers—such as all of ours in the UK—have to reach a wider audience while ensuring that people always drink carefully and wisely.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Our co-operation with Saudi Arabia on defence and security helps to maintain hundreds of jobs at BAE Warton on the Fylde coast. What steps are the Government taking to further develop that relationship and the opportunities for trade with Saudi Arabia?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
We have just finished a consultation with British businesses, citizens and civil society on their aspirations for a free trade agreement with the Gulf Co-operation Council, of which Saudi Arabia is an important part. My hon. Friend knows that that will provide the opportunity to reduce tariffs and streamline market access barriers. He will also be aware, from the excellent report by BAE Systems, that there are well over 500—maybe even 600—jobs in Blackpool because of the presence of BAE Systems in that part of our country, which shows the importance of our strategic exports.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
This Government, as we know, have blundered many times, and now a lobster or a leg of chicken cannot be sold to any country in the world without five, eight or 10 bits of paperwork. I am trying to prevent another blunder.
The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys supports the accession to CPTPP, but cautions that
“we believe that if the UK were to sign up the CPTPP IP chapter as currently drafted, this could have unintended consequences”
for our reputation as an international patent leader, for innovative small and medium-sized enterprises, for UK GDP and for the UK patent profession. It asks that
“the UK…should take a very firm position and insist on carve outs for the UK from these provisions of CPTPP.”
Will the Department take up that ask and insist that it happens?
Mike Freer
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. It is in my diary to meet him in the next few weeks; I suggest that he brings that paper with him and we can have a more fruitful discussion.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Can the Minister outline how much cotton and how many products to construct solar panels have been imported into the UK from Xinjiang in the past year?
Penny Mordaunt
I can certainly write to the hon. Gentleman with the information that our Department and others may hold on the matter. May I reassure him again that it is welcome that he has raised it today and that we are taking it very seriously?
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Earlier, I mentioned a company in my patch called Gestamp. The motor trade is a worldwide business; Gestamp supplies to Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan, Volvo and all their factories throughout the world. What is being done to help its research and development efforts to make sure that it remains a world leader?
Penny Mordaunt
I think that a letter is winging its way towards my hon. Friend about various issues that he has raised with us, which will outline what we are doing to ensure that we are competitive and creating the right environment to get inward investment. He will know that we have a huge focus and push on science and technology, spearheaded in part by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), as Science Minister. The points that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) has raised with my Department are being listened to and are well made.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Yesterday, the permanent secretary of the Department for International Trade told the Public Accounts Committee that 85% of post-Brexit trade deals have simply replicated the deals that we already had with the European Union. Does it really represent such a resounding success at knocking down trade barriers if 85% of the barriers that the Government are knocking down are barriers that they put up in the first place?
Penny Mordaunt
A lot of work needed to be done in all areas of Government, including trade, to roll over legislation to our statute book and move trade agreements to a new statutory footing. The opportunity has come for what we can do next. It is not just about the big economic benefits that we usually discuss in our meetings and sessions, but about what we can do to help developing nations. Many of the economic partnership agreements that have taken a long time to make, for example with countries in Africa, will not only provide economic benefits to the UK but lift millions of people out of poverty.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Talks on steel and aluminium tariffs have started, but Washington has still to confirm the apparent virtual plan. The British economy, instead of becoming global post Brexit, is not. My constituents at the Dalzell works in Motherwell want to see progress on the punitive tariffs so that they can sell to the Americans. The relationship between President Biden and the current Prime Minister is not particularly rosy, but can the Secretary of State confirm that whoever is Prime Minister in the upcoming time, she will ask them to intervene and get this sorted?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I am thrilled that we were able to launch the negotiations formally yesterday. I will make sure that I keep in touch with all across the UK steel industry as we move forward. The US Secretary of Commerce and I have been clear, through our teams, that we want to resolve the matter at pace, and that is what we will be doing.
British Council Staff: Afghanistan
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on British Council staff in Afghanistan.
The Minister for Asia (Amanda Milling)
During August 2021, through a shared effort right across Government and our armed forces, we delivered the largest, most complex evacuation in living memory. Between 15 and 19 August, the UK evacuated over 15,000 people from Afghanistan. That included over 8,000 British nationals, and close to 5,000 Afghans who loyally served the UK—including British Council employees—along with their dependants. The UK also evacuated around 500 special cases of particularly vulnerable Afghans, including some British Council contractors, journalists, human rights defenders, campaigners for women’s rights, judges and many others. All former British Council employees have arrived in the UK with their family members. In August, the Government agreed to resettle more than 50 of the most vulnerable British Council contractors, many of whom have already arrived in the UK with their families.
Travel in and out of Afghanistan remains difficult. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is providing assistance and supporting families who are eligible for resettlement in the UK. The Government have also agreed to consider British Council contractors for resettlement based on risk. On 6 January, the Minister for Afghan Resettlement announced the opening of the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. In its first year, the Government will honour our commitment to offer ACRS places to the most at-risk British Council contractors, as well as GardaWorld contractors and Chevening alumni. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will be in touch with those eligible to support them through the next steps of the process.
The British Council performed an important role in Afghanistan; it worked to support the UK mission in Afghanistan and to promote our values. The Government will do the right thing by British Council employees and contractors, including by resettling those contractors who are most at risk.
Fabian Hamilton
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. The fact is that months after the Taliban took control of Afghanistan, there are still many British Council staff and contractors stranded in that country and facing threats of violence every single day from the regime. Reports suggest that the vast majority of those staff are teachers who worked with the British Council teaching vital skills, such as English language skills, to many Afghans, including many women and girls, who are now largely barred from attending school owing to the Taliban’s warped ideology.
We owe those brave people so much for supporting the UK’s work in Afghanistan over the last two decades. Many of them are still trapped in the country, fearing for their life; the UK Government have badly let them down. Yesterday at Prime Minister’s Question Time, the Prime Minister said that
“the British Council…is a wonderful institution that we all love.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 321.]
If he valued it so much, would he not have ensured that every single one of these brave British Council teachers, staff and contractors was urgently evacuated to safety?
I ask the Minister: how many current and ex-British Council staff are stranded in Afghanistan? Are the Government considering using the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme to get them out? Does she accept that the Government’s catastrophic cuts to British Council funding have made this difficult situation far worse? What message does this inaction send to other British Council employees working in challenging environments all around the world? Is it that people whose association with the UK may put them in danger have seemingly been abandoned by the British Government?
The British Council is vital to the UK’s influence around the world. The Prime Minister’s now hollow pledge to “move heaven and earth” to get those who supported the UK out of Afghanistan has resulted in the abandoning of British Council staff to the whims of the Taliban. Not only is that morally wrong, but it will severely damage both that institution and the United Kingdom’s reputation on the international stage.
Amanda Milling
As I set out in my opening remarks, the British Council has performed an important role in Afghanistan working to support the UK mission and promote our values. It is therefore right that we are supporting those in need. In August the Government agreed to resettle more than 50 British Council contractors, and many of them have already arrived in the UK with their families.
As I also set out, it is difficult to travel both within and out of Afghanistan at the moment, but we are committed to working in step with the international community to do all we can to enable those who are eligible to relocate to the UK. It is worth noting that resettlement is just one element of the UK Government’s response to the situation in Afghanistan. In addition to our diplomacy and international aid in the region, we are working alongside like-minded states as part of the international community. The Government will resettle those British Council contractors who are most at risk.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend clearly sets out the wonderful work done by our defence forces to relieve people who wanted to leave Afghanistan. All those who worked for the British Council in Afghanistan did tremendous work. Will they be evacuated and assisted by her Department to make sure they are free and can live their lives in liberty?
Amanda Milling
I share my hon. Friend’s view on what the armed forces did in incredibly difficult circumstances. It was tremendous.
All British Council employees have arrived in the UK with their families, and the Government agreed that we would resettle more than 50 of the most vulnerable British Council contractors. Many of those contractors have already arrived in the UK. It is important to note that we are trying to support those most in need and most at risk.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this vital urgent question.
Around 100 ex-British Council staff are still in Afghanistan, having so far been denied the right to come to the UK. These teachers taught English, and they were the face of the UK in Afghanistan. Now they feel stranded and abandoned by the country for which they worked. It goes back to what I previously said in this Chamber: this is no longer a global Britain but an insular Britain that is running away from its responsibilities.
British Council staff had thought they were eligible under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, but that scheme’s eligibility criteria were narrowed on 14 December. These British Council teachers had been waiting months and months for a reply. Staff had been told that those most at risk could apply for the new Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, which was promised last summer but opened only days ago. On top of the fear of reprisals that British Council staff already face, these teachers have unnecessarily had to deal with a dysfunctional Conservative Government, the backwards and forwards, the to-ing and fro-ing and the narrowing of eligibility criteria. The irony is not lost on me that this is officially named Operation Warm Welcome.
After a long wait, the UK Government recently said that British Council staff most at risk can apply to the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. Can the Minister provide a cast-iron guarantee today that applications from British Council staff will be considered as a matter of priority? Early reporting gave the impression that the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme will accommodate 25,000 people, but recent announcements no longer mention five years. Can she clarify whether that is because she has changed policy to make it narrower? Do these numbers cover only principal applicants, or do they cover their families?
Amanda Milling
As I set out in previous answers, the Government agreed in August to resettle more than 50 British Council contractors, many of whom have already arrived in the United Kingdom. We are looking to resettle those British Council contractors who are most at risk, and earlier in the month my ministerial colleague, the Minister for Afghan Resettlement, set out what the scheme will be doing. We are committed to supporting those at most risk.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her response to the urgent question. Can she confirm that since Operation Pitting we have continued to welcome at-risk Afghans, including women, girls and other minorities such as members of the LGBTQ community, some of whom have been generously offered homes in Darlington by Darlington Borough Council?
Amanda Milling
We are committed to supporting those who are most at risk, including women and girls and members of the LGBT community. Some tremendous work is already being done to resettle Afghans in the United Kingdom, and I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituency and its borough council are welcoming those most at risk.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
We all know that Afghans who work for the British Council are in fear of their lives. I have been told that in one case the Taliban went to a house and hit a seven-year-old girl to try to get her to reveal where her father was. She did not give him away, and he is currently in his ninth hiding place. It is no wonder that these staff are in fear of their lives.
What action are the Government taking to support those people today? What money is being provided to enable them to buy food as they hide, and what is the plan—the practical plan—to help them to get out of the country?
Amanda Milling
We as a Government are committed to working with the international community to do all that we can to help those who are eligible to be resettled in the United Kingdom. Resettlement itself is of course one part of that, but it is in addition to our diplomatic efforts and the provision of international aid in the region as we work alongside like-minded states as part of the international community. We are co-ordinating closely with international partners, and have doubled our aid to Afghanistan for this financial year to £286 million, which will be used to provide the vital humanitarian assistance that will save lives this winter.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Through Operation Pitting we delivered the largest and most complex evacuation in living memory. That was a truly amazing effort. Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the heroic efforts of our brilliant armed forces, and can she confirm that we will continue to do everything we can to resettle the British Council workers who are most at risk?
Amanda Milling
My hon. Friend is right to praise the heroic efforts of our armed forces in Operation Pitting, and to draw attention to the scale of the challenges that we faced during that period. As he has said, this was the most complex evacuation in living memory. All the British Council employees who served the UK so loyally have been evacuated and have arrived here with their families, and the British Council contractors who are most at risk will be able to apply for resettlement.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
In her answer to the urgent question, the Minister mentioned the £286 million of aid that we are giving to Afghanistan. The amount has been doubled after being halved the previous year, which is fine, but in her response to another urgent question last week, the Minister confirmed that only half that money—£145 million—had actually been disbursed.
We are reaching the end of the financial year. This aid will be life-saving. What is happening is the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world: there are children, pregnant mothers and other people who are about to die if the aid does not reach them. How can we get it to them in time, and if it is not spent, will it be ring-fenced by the Treasury so that it is not propping up next year’s budget?
Amanda Milling
International aid is really important in supporting those most at risk, and we are working closely with our international partners to ensure that we are getting that aid to those most in need. As I set out earlier, we have doubled our aid for Afghanistan for this financial year to £286 million, which will be essential to providing humanitarian assistance for those most in need.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
A recent report by Human Rights Watch detailed how Taliban rule has had a devastating impact on Afghan women and girls, and the catastrophic cuts to funding for the British Council have made this difficult situation worse. What steps are the Government taking to deliver protection and services for the women and girls facing gender-based violence in Afghanistan?
Amanda Milling
The ACRS will prioritise those who have stood up for our values, such as a democracy and women’s rights in Afghanistan, as well as the most vulnerable groups, including ethnic and religious minorities. We are providing that support for women and girls. The Government have already evacuated thousands of women and girls—for instance, female judges, women’s rights activists and a girls’ football team. Women and girls have been immediately prioritised for resettlement through the resettlement scheme.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I declare an interest, in that I worked for the British Council for 12 years. It is a brilliant organisation that does a huge amount to promote the United Kingdom around the world, and it is deeply disappointing that the UK Government are taking such short-sighted action in cutting the funding to the British Council, leading to the closure of dozens of overseas offices. On the point of the urgent question today, given the huge sacrifices that British Council staff and contractors have made, what discussions has the Minister had with her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office around expanding the eligibility criteria for the ARAP scheme to include British Council staff and contractors?
Amanda Milling
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to praise the work of the British Council. It has been instrumental in the work in Afghanistan to support the UK mission there. Ministers across Departments such as Defence and the Home Office are in constant contact, but as I have set out, employees have already been able to resettle to the United Kingdom. The contractors will be eligible based on their risk.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I, too, declare an interest in that I have also previously worked for the British Council. More than 20 million people are facing the prospect of starvation in Afghanistan and the situation could not be more urgent. In relation to the Minister’s earlier responses, could she tell the House how much of the £286 million of aid promised in this financial year has been disbursed so far?
Amanda Milling
As I have said, international aid to the region is absolutely essential and we are working with our international partners to ensure that we get that assistance to those on the ground. We are co-ordinating with our partners. We have doubled the aid for this financial year to £286 million, which will be used to ensure that we get that humanitarian assistance to those on the ground.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
In addition to British Council staff, many of us have thousands of constituents—in my case, up to 150—who have relatives and friends who have worked for the British in Afghanistan and who are in terrible need of resettlement to this country. The ARAP scheme and the ACRS have done very little to bring many, if any, of my constituents’ relatives and friends away from the horror going on in Afghanistan. When will the Government really gear up these schemes to ensure that people can be rescued from the horror that is Afghanistan at the moment?
Amanda Milling
The ACRS announced earlier this month will provide those most at risk from recent events in Afghanistan with a route to safety. The scheme will prioritise those who have assisted the UK efforts in Afghanistan and those who have stood up for values such as democracy, women’s rights, freedom of speech and the rule of law, as well as vulnerable people, including women and girls who are at risk and members of minority groups who are at risk.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) was absolutely right that it is critical to support those British Council staff and contractors who are in hiding. What steps are the British Government taking to enable some form of cash flow in Afghanistan so that international banks can bypass the Taliban, support those in fear of their lives and assist the delivery of aid to starving Afghan people without the fear that such financial institutions could face sanctions from our partner Governments?
Amanda Milling
We have doubled our aid for this financial year and we are working with our international partners to ensure that we reach those who are most at risk but, as I have said, the conditions in Afghanistan are currently very difficult, in respect of both travelling within and leaving Afghanistan.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Former guards for the UK embassy in Kabul are still awaiting evacuation, despite the Government’s promise months ago to evacuate them. All French embassy guards have been evacuated and Canada has even evacuated cleaners, while Germany and Australia still have evacuations under way. Will the Minister provide an urgent update on FCDO plans in this respect?
Amanda Milling
As I have said in previous answers, those British Council employees who sought resettlement have arrived in the UK, together with their dependants, and the resettlement of British Council contractors will be based on risk.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her response to the question. The impacts of the ongoing political situation in Afghanistan are truly devastating. This week, the 100 Afghans who were employed to spread British values and teach English in Helmand province—the same province where many of our brave UK and British troops were murdered and killed—are in hiding because they are terrified of the reprisals they may face. Will the Minister ensure that, through the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, those people will be given priority to return to the UK, because many are not sure that they will be able to survive the current situation? As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), said—and I agree with him—we must move heaven and earth to get them here.
Amanda Milling
We are committed to working in step with the international community to continue to do all we can to enable those who are eligible to relocate to the UK to do so. The scheme offers current and former locally employed staff who are under threat priority to relocate to the United Kingdom.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to you for taking a point of order at this stage. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), to whom I gave notice of my intention to raise this point of order, has spoken today in the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee about the intimidation of and threatened removal of funding from projects in the constituencies of Members who have come out against the Prime Minister and called for him to resign. This is behaviour of a sort I have never heard. We all understand the need for Whips to maintain discipline, but this owes more to the tactics of the mafia than anything found in “Erskine May”.
What can you do, Mr Speaker, to protect Members who wish to express their opinions and have differences sincerely and strongly held without seeing their constituents disadvantaged in such ways and without their being intimidated into remaining silent when they really want to speak up?
Mr Speaker
Members may wish to write to me in private. I understand what the right hon. Gentleman said. There are allegations about the conduct of Whips and special advisers working for Ministers. Serious allegations have been made and, at this stage, without having had chance to study what has been said in detail, I can only offer general guidance; I have been in the Chair since this revelation came out, as I understand it, at 10 o’clock. Members and those who work for them are not above the criminal law. The investigation of alleged criminal conduct is a matter for the police and decisions about prosecution are for the Crown Prosecution Service. It would be wrong of me to interfere with such matters.
While the whipping system is long established, it is of course a contempt to obstruct Members in the discharge of their duty, or to attempt to intimidate a Member in their parliamentary conduct by threats. There is a clear process for raising privileged matters and referring them for investigation to determine whether the conduct in question is a contempt. In the first instance, Members raising such concerns should write to me. I hope these general observations will assist the House in going forward.
Business of the House
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 24 January will include:
Monday 24 January—Opposition day (9th allotted day - 2nd part). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Scottish National Party, subject to be announced, followed by remaining stages of the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 25 January—Remaining stages of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill followed by a motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Down Syndrome Bill.
Wednesday 26 January—Second Reading of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill.
Thursday 27 January—General debate on Holocaust Memorial Day 2022. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 28 January—Private Member’s Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 31 January will include:
Monday 31 January—Motion to approve a ways and means resolution relating to the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Dormant Assets Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 1 February—Opposition day (11th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. First, I welcome the newest member of the parliamentary Labour party, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford). As the Leader of the Opposition said, my hon. Friend has rightly concluded that
“the Prime Minister and the Conservative party have shown themselves incapable of offering the leadership and Government this country deserves, whereas the Labour party stands ready to provide an alternative Government that the country can be proud of.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 321.]
The Leader of the House has demonstrated on several occasions his socialist tendencies, so I remind him that he is also more than welcome, any time he wishes, to come over to this side and join my hon. Friend.
At first, the Prime Minister said no rules were broken, then he said that he did not know about any parties, then he said he did not know whether he was there or not, then he remembered that he was there but did not know that it was a party. This week, the Prime Minister is testing out a new defence: that nobody warned him that the party was against the rules. So could the Leader of the House explain how the Prime Minister, who was literally the one setting and reading out the rules every night, did not understand the rules? It is a very odd defence.
The Office for National Statistics released figures yesterday showing inflation soaring to 5.4%, which is its highest rate in 30 years. Working families are already feeling the crunch, and the triple whammy of an imminent rise in the energy price cap, real wages falling and Tory tax rises make this crisis even worse. Labour would give people security, with fully-funded measures now to keep energy bills low, which would save households about £200 a year, with an extra £400 for families and pensioners who need it most. The Government could have supported that, but they did not. May we have a statement on why they are so out of touch with the reality faced by people across this country that instead of taking action to tackle the cost-of-living crisis, the Chancellor is just looking the other way, trapping us in a high-tax, low-growth economy?
I have asked the Leader of the House numerous times to locate which of the many sofas he perhaps possesses is hiding the Online Safety Bill, so I ask him that again. Last year, the Prime Minister said that it would have completed all stages by Christmas, then he said it would just be Second Reading—Members may be noticing a pattern here–and then there was just a vague commitment that it would happen at some point during the Session. The pre-legislative scrutiny Committee has reported, we have had a Backbench Business debate and still there is nothing. Meanwhile, social media and tech giants roam unregulated and many, including children and vulnerable people, are unsafe online. Please could the Leader of the House confirm when the timetable for this important Bill will be brought forward?
In another example of the Government’s trying to avoid scrutiny, Ministers have taken to trying to slip huge chunks of legislation into Bills through Lords amendments, in a desperate bid to circumvent elected representatives in this place having the chance to debate them, as they did this week in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Will the Leader of the House explain why the Government are forced to sneak in these additional amendments in the other place, hoping that we in the Commons do not notice? It did not work, because the Labour peers voted down those last-minute Government amendments to that Bill. I have to say that, in a foreshadowing of what is happening in this place, it was striking how many Conservative peers also did not support the Government. Labour peers were the ones who voted for alternative plans that provided for strong action against dangerous protests; stronger action against protests on motorways that put lives at risk; an urgent review of drink spiking offences; giving councils powers to prevent anti-vax intimidation outside schools; and making misogyny a hate crime. Tackling violence against women and girls in that way and tackling anti-vax intimidation in that way is something that the Government could have voted for, but they failed to do so. It is the Home Office that is failing to keep us safe. Recorded violent crime has risen and prosecutions have fallen. Tackling crime and violence against women should have been the focus of that Bill, so will he tell us when it will be brought back to this place, so that democratically elected representatives on this side of the House can continue to argue for a better approach?
Finally, let me say that our country deserves so much better than this Government, who have completely lost grip. They are out of touch and out of control, they seem to be out of ideas and they are soon to be out of office.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful, as always, to the hon. Lady, particularly for her offer that I should join them on the other side of the House. My welcome would be even warmer than that given to the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), who has not received the warmest welcome from the young socialists, who are not so keen, or from the Corbynistas, who are not in raptures at somebody who used language about the socialists on online chat groups that is not of the type I would use ever. I fear I would make our friends the stenographers of Hansard blush if I were to repeat such language in this House. Mr Speaker, I think you would swoon if the words he used to refer to his now socialist friends were poured forth. One has to say, “With friends like that”—I will leave others to conclude the rest of the sentence.
We then come on to what the hon. Lady and other socialists have been saying about the Prime Minister. He has rightly apologised to the House for mistakes that have been made. He has apologised to the country for mistakes that have been made, and Sue Gray is carrying out an investigation, but the socialists never want due process to take place. They always want to make the decision before they have the facts. They do not want to do it properly. This Government are doing it properly, and while we were doing it properly, we set up, under this Prime Minister’s leadership, the furlough programme that saved 14 million jobs and that kept the economy going, which means that the economy is now back above its pre-pandemic levels and that youth unemployment is at a record low.
Every statistic on the economy is going in the right direction in terms of economic growth and employment. Getting back to pre-pandemic levels is a real achievement and something of which the Prime Minister can be proud. The Prime Minister got the vaccine roll-out right. Just think what howls we would have now—what they would be saying every week—if, in the end, the vaccine had not worked. It was that bold decision to buy billions of pounds-worth of vaccines early on that has meant that we are the first country to reopen. Have the socialists ever wanted us to reopen? No, of course not, because when the socialists take charge of our lives, they never want to give it up. They objected to our opening in the summer. They wanted a lockdown in the winter. They have grudgingly come round to the fact that we are now able to reopen earlier than other comparable countries. This is the success of the Prime Minister.
That does not mean that every problem is removed. Everyone accepts that inflation is a problem, but, of course, monetary policy is the independent responsibility of the Bank of England—an independent responsibility given to it by one Mr Gordon Brown, who I seem to remember was a socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer who therefore delegated the primary responsibility for inflation to the Bank of England.
On Bills, the Government are looking carefully at the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the draft Online Safety Bill, which were extremely helpful. I expect that that Bill will be brought forward at the appropriate time—when it is ready. We like to do things at the proper pace. As a general rule, we like to put carts behind horses rather than in front of them. That is better than having carts and horses misaligned.
Then we get to the socialists’ desire for superglue. Mr Speaker, did you know that they want sales of superglue to go up. They are the advertisers for superglue, or Araldite. They want people gluing themselves to motorways to block up our major arteries, because they got their socialist peers in their fine ermine-trimmed robes to vote to obstruct the highways. That is what you get from socialism, Mr Speaker: control; interference; bossiness; and failure. With Conservatives, you get a growing economy.
Mr Speaker
Some might have said that Gordon Brown was a Labour Chancellor with socialist principles.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree with me that we need a range of options to ensure that energy prices in the UK remain affordable. To that end, I recently met Eqtec, a company operating in my constituency in partnership with Southport Hybrid Energy Park, that will turn waste into power without the emission of toxic fumes and that aims to provide enough clean energy for 20% of the homes in Southport. Does he agree that a debate to discuss clean energy innovation companies such as Eqtec would be worthy of this House and worthy of the time of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this to the attention of the House. Companies such as Eqtec are exactly what we need to keep us on course for net zero by 2050 while maintaining a healthy, varied and affordable energy supply. Embracing a wide variety of energy sources is vital for keeping the lights on and our houses warm. As the recent difficulties have shown, we need to embrace a widespread energy supply, from nuclear power to power provided by companies such as the one that my hon. Friend mentions, and, of course, natural gas as a transition fuel on the journey to net zero in 2050.
Her Majesty’s Government are committed to decarbonising our electricity system by 2035, backed by investment in renewables, such as tidal stream energy and nuclear. I am sure that, above all, our voters care for cheap, plentiful energy in their homes, and we want to ensure that that is compatible with net zero. As for the debate, it is either one for Westminster Hall, or, perhaps, under your generous auspices, Mr Speaker, for an Adjournment debate.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Can we have a debate about big dogs and the operations to save them? Apparently, one big dog is feeling a bit more secure this morning, with a trip to the vet to put him out of his misery possibly having been averted for a few days or more—for the time being, anyway. Who knew that defection, intimidation and blackmail would have such a recuperating effect on his colleagues?
We in the SNP are absolutely gutted about the prospect of taking on the current Prime Minister in Scotland. We completely refute the assertion that he is the best recruiting sergeant we have ever had for independence. It is not just us, however. Members of one party in Scotland are so looking forward to the current Prime Minister fighting in Scotland—they are the lightweights and nobodies among the Scottish Conservatives. One can only imagine their enthusiasm to get out to the stump to encourage the Conservatives in Scotland to vote for a Prime Minister who do they not want and who they want gone. It will be absolutely hilarious.
We are all expecting the Prime Minister to honour his pledge to come to the House with a statement following the release of Sue Gray’s report. Does the Leader of the House not think, however, that the House deserves a full debate on a one-line motion, “That this House has full confidence in the Prime Minister”—an amendable motion? I am sure that that suggestion will have the support of the Government and the Whips in particular, because that would be an obvious opportunity for them to see all the recalcitrant Members and decide which will be denied funding and which will have all the leaks to the press about them.
Lastly, we need a debate about parties so that we can congratulate No. 10 staff on their sheer energy and hedonism. Those parties are the things of legend. I spent 20 years in rock and roll and even at the height of my excess, I could not even start to compete with those at No. 10. To those at No. 10 who are about to party, I say, “We salute you.”
Mr Rees-Mogg
One looks forward to the hon. Gentleman’s parties, which I am sure would be enormous fun. When he is there with his rock and roll band, I think the furious persona that is presented to us at business questions every week slides away, and suddenly the true Mr Wishart appears as the kindly, benevolent and jovial fellow that he is. I must say that the mask he wears so well in this House—in both senses—sometimes covers that up, but I am sure that, privately, his parties would be a joy to behold.
The hon. Gentleman asks me for a debate. Well, ask and it shall be given. As I have said, the Scottish National party has an Opposition day debate on Monday and he will be free to put down any orderly motion for that day. If the motion is the one that he wants, that will be the motion that we will debate. If he wishes to succeed in uniting the Conservative party even more on Monday, I look forward to the motion that he will put down.
As regards big dogs, they are absolutely splendid. I got a dog for my daughter a couple of years ago. I was quite keen on having an Irish wolfhound, because they are fine and impressive animals, but we ended up with a cocker spaniel, which is an absolute delight. I am sure that we could debate in this House on many occasions the varied virtues of all sorts of hounds—the bloodhounds that people admire and like so much. [Interruption.] Or Dalmatians, Yorkshire terriers or any of the range of dogs that could be considered and that bring joy to so many of sour constituents. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is most concerned that pet theft be made illegal, with which I am confident the Government will deal in due course.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I declare my entry in the register as the chair of a safeguarding board. The Leader of the House and all hon. Members will remember the tragic cases of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson, the six-year-old and 16-month-old children who were killed at the hands of their parents and carers before Christmas. We had a statement from the Secretary of State for Education on 6 December. Can we have Government time for a debate on the safeguarding of children, which we have not had in this House for some time, to coincide with the report from the national review that the Secretary of State ordered? We will shortly have the serious case review of the Star case and many constituents will be concerned to know what further measures we can take to protect such vulnerable children.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of those tragic cases that have upset the nation at large and that require great work to be done to protect children in future. The cruelty, abuse and pain that those children suffered is unimaginable. It is important that policies are brought forward and adopted to protect children. Obviously, during lockdown, the supervision of children who were thought to be at risk was not what it ought to be and what it usually is when the country is fully at work. That is something that needs to be looked at. We need to be aware of what went wrong, so that we can ensure that those sorts of things do not go wrong in the future.
I cannot promise a specific debate in Government time on this matter, but I encourage my hon. Friend to keep on on the subject and to seek the guidance of the Backbench Business Committee, because it is a subject that many in this House would like to discuss.
Mr Speaker
Talking of which, I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Ian Mearns.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
As always, I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business, in particular the fact that we have next Thursday to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day, which is a vitally important day in the parliamentary calendar. I take the opportunity to remind Members across the House that, if they wish to apply for debates to commemorate particular anniversaries or notable calendar events, they should please look ahead in the diary and get their applications into the Backbench Business Committee as early as possible, so that it can help to secure the time and meet their wishes.
We all want to see the economy getting fully back to normal and to see the end of restrictions but, following yesterday’s announcement of the proposed relaxation of covid restrictions, I have been contacted by several constituents with concerns. So could we have a statement or advice for our constituents who are medically vulnerable, or have medically vulnerable family members, especially younger children with profound disabilities or chronic health issues, who are still extremely vulnerable to the covid pandemic but have not yet had access to vaccination? Those families need the Government to reassure them that they will not be forced into a form of self-imposed lockdown to protect their vulnerable family members.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the delivery of vaccinations. The vaccination and booster programme has been a considerable success. It is striking that 90% of people in intensive care have not received the booster vaccination, so the importance of having one is great. I will certainly take up any specific cases he has in relation to individual constituents with the Department of Health and Social Care if he is not getting satisfactory answers. He raises an important issue, which is one of general concern, but getting back to normal is what we need to do. We need this country to get back to normal, we need people getting back into work and we need to learn to live with covid after the difficulties that we have had over the last two years and after the remarkable behaviour of this nation in getting through so difficult a circumstance and being the first country to be on the way to getting back to normality.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
The Labour party’s tax on business, otherwise known as the Greater Manchester clean air zone, is a disaster for my constituents. It is impacting taxi drivers, small businesses and many others over an area of 493 square miles. I ask my right hon. Friend to make time for a debate so that this House can tell the Mayor of Greater Manchester and all the Labour politicians, including the Labour leader of Bury Council, that that plan is not acceptable, that the voice of Parliament must be heard and that my constituents must not be penalised in that manner.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who serves his constituents so nobly. Labour’s plan is essentially a tax on jobs, a tax on working people and an attack on the motorist. The Labour party hates the motorist because the socialist does not like the independence that motoring brings to people. Again and again, Labour wants to attack the motorist. Labour’s plan, Mr Burnham’s plan, the socialist plan, the left-wing plan for a tax on working people in Greater Manchester is something that my hon. Friend is right to campaign against.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
South Western Railway serves three stations in Battersea. Due to the pandemic, a reduced service has been in operation. Recently, however, it has introduced further cuts, including going from three trains an hour to just one and 200 fewer services every day. The changes will cause massive disruption to my constituents who rely on those services, including for their daily commute. It is worth pointing out that, in 2020, South Western Railway increased rail fares by 2.9%, which was the second highest among all rail operators. Can we have a debate in Government time on its service delivery, service cuts and reductions?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady’s point is serious and important. It is to be hoped that, as people come back into work, the railway companies will realise that more services are needed. The return to normality ought to see more people coming into central London, so one would expect—she referred to the three trains an hour going down to one —that the demand will be restored. As it is a very specific debate, I suggest the hon. Lady speaks to Mr Speaker for an Adjournment debate, but I know it is a concern that many of her constituents will share.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
There have been media reports that 80% of residents in the United Kingdom are very concerned about a climate catastrophe. Can we have a statement from a Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to give the results of the inquiry into net zero governance?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government share the public’s concern, which is why the UK was the first major economy to legislate for net zero emissions through the Climate Change Act 2008. Her Majesty’s Government have continued to deliver on that commitment through the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, making our energy system more diverse and secure, while creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs. It is also important that any new technology ensures that energy is affordable. Between 1990 and 2019, our economy grew by 78%, while emissions decreased by 44%. That is the fastest reduction in the G7. The fundamental point is that we need our economy to grow and we need to be richer, and that will allow us to afford to be greener at the same time.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
In October, I was pleased to support my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) when she brought forward her private Member’s Bill on the menopause. In response, the Government said they would look at combining the two hormone replacement therapy treatments into one prescription to make it more affordable. Can we please have a Government statement on when this important women’s health measure will be implemented?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Whenever the name of the hon. Member for Swansea East is mentioned in relation to a campaign, I always have a sneaking suspicion that it will be successful. I will take up what the hon. Gentleman has asked for. I know it is something that the Government are planning to do; it is merely a matter of timing. I hope we can find out a precise time for him and his hon. Friend.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
This week, the Secretary of State for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities announced that he was minded to send commissioners into Labour-led Sandwell Council. We know about the corruption and malfeasance at the heart of the Labour administration in Sandwell, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that we will have the opportunity to have a debate in Government time on Sandwell Council at long last? Will he also confirm, responding on behalf of the Government, that should these commissioners find anything—whether that be instances of real financial corruption by previous leaders, councillors or even the former chief executive—these matters will be referred to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We may need to set aside days of debate to discover all the failings and corruptions in socialist councils. They seem to come up at business questions again and again. It is important that Members hold local authorities to account, and this is not the first time that my hon. Friend has raised suspicious dealings at Sandwell in this House at business questions. The Government have been able to send commissioners to improve the performance of serially failing local authorities—that is a vital tool—and it is right that they are held to account. Of course, if crimes have been committed, the police should be called and involved.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is always fun to discuss dogs with the Leader of the House. I remember that his daughter’s family pet is called Daisy. From cuddly dogs to warm homes, it has been reported in the press that the energy company obligation, or ECO, may be cut by the Treasury in response to the gas crisis. ECO tackles fuel poverty and reduces CO2 emissions through energy efficiency and heating upgrades. Scrapping or not uplifting ECO will make it more difficult for those who are already struggling to pay their bills. Can we have a statement from the Treasury on what measures it is taking to ensure that energy efficiency is achieved, but in particular that struggling households can pay their bills and not be worried sick?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I can tell the hon. Lady that Daisy came from her constituency, travelling the long way from Bath to North East Somerset.
On her serious question, the Government are obviously very conscious of the pressure on families through rising energy bills, so the energy price cap is being maintained. There is a £500 million household support fund, so that local authorities can help those on the lowest incomes with their food and utility costs, and a £140 rebate on the energy bills of 2.2 million low-income householders this winter through the warm home discount. There are seasonal cold weather payments of an extra £25 a week for up to 4 million people during colder periods, and up to £300 in winter fuel payments for recipients of the state pension. A great deal is being done to help people with their energy costs, and that is the right thing to do.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
May I offer my thanks to the leader of the Labour party, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), for uniting Conservative Back Benchers more effectively than anyone else could and for reminding us of our democratic mandate? May I ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a debate on that issue?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a very important point about the democratic mandate and what mandate we have, because most of us know that we are elected because of the party that we support. All the studies have shown that the personal vote that Members of Parliament have is remarkably small. People are aware that however much independents may be brilliant individuals, they very rarely get elected to this House; it is the party ticket that gets people elected. I know that Bills have been introduced to this House, supported by hon. Members from across the House—particularly ones, I believe, from Bury—on having a by-election if people were to decide to change party. I think that is worth discussing and debating because the mandate goes with the party, but also, if I may say so, with the individual. Members of the Conservative party know that we were elected because of the leadership of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He has the mandate; he has the commission from the Queen; he had the support of the British people in 2019. It is our responsibility to ensure that the Government he leads is a success.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The House will be aware from the Adjournment debate last Friday on the insecurity of the private rental sector that 4.4 million families are now in the privately rented sector and that half of all people in that sector who complain to their local authority about repairs not being done were given an eviction notice to quit within six months of that complaint. When will the Government introduce the urgent legislation that is desperately needed to tackle the issue and help the 4.4 million families who now call the privately rented sector their home, and probably will for many more years to come?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am going to quibble with the hon. Lady, because many of the 4.4 million people living in private rented homes are extremely happy with them. Private rented home residency is a very important part of the housing market. That is not an excuse for bad landlords, but it is wrong to assume that all private renting is bad, because a great deal of it is beneficial. It provides mobility and allows people to use their capital in different ways, so we should support and burnish the private rental sector, but we should also do whatever we can to ensure that landlords behave properly.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Bus lanes are intended to provide a smooth path for buses to travel, particularly during peak hours. Personally, I have never understood why in London, we have so many all-hours, seven days a week, 24 hours a day bus lanes when no buses travel during the early hours of the morning. Recently, there was a case in a neighbouring constituency where we have the smallest bus lane in London—it is 39 feet long. However, over the past year, 7,800 motorists have been fined for going in that bus lane, which operates seven days a week, 24 hours a day, and Harrow Council has got £442,363 in fines. Not only is it is a small bus lane but it is adjacent to a lane that is required only during peak hours. May we have a debate in Government time on bus lanes and their signage, which seems to be a way of milking the motorist rather than allowing people to travel properly?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend. It is noticeable that, under the covid provisions, an awful lot of bus lanes seem to have gone from being for set times to 24 hours a day, even when they are not being used for a large chunk of the day. What he says about 7,800 fines for 39 feet of bus lane raising more than £442,000 is a swindle. Once again, the poor, hard-pressed motorist is being abused by councils that dislike motoring. The Conservative party is the party of the motorist. Yes, bus lanes serve a role during peak hours, but opening them for 24 hours just to turn them into a milch cow seems quite wrong.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
My constituent Garry McDermott has been trying to resolve issues with his war pension for a decade, having sent crucial documents to the Ministry of Defence 50 times, but they repeatedly go missing. I understand there are 1,500 pages missing from his evidence bundle. Garry is just one of thousands of veterans facing similar issues, which are driving many into poverty and increasing the risk of suicide. I know all hon. Members have huge respect for veterans, so does the Leader of the House share my anger that the current system for claiming war pensions and armed forces compensation payments is far too complex and non-transparent and is driving veterans to give up altogether? May we have a debate in Government time to consider fully the need for an independent inquiry into the failings of the current process?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is not always right to draw conclusions about a whole system from one case. The hon. Gentleman raises the case of Garry McDermott, who has sent in his papers 50 times over 10 years, with 1,500 pages going missing. I will certainly take up the case with the Ministry of Defence if he sends me more information, as it is important that systems work well not just in theory but in practice for individual constituents. I view it as very much the role of the Leader of the House to try to facilitate redress of grievance, where that is possible.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
In 1825, Locomotion No. 1 pulled the first passenger train over Skerne bridge in Darlington, marking the birth of the modern railway. Ever since, Darlington has had a unique connection to the railways that made Britain great. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should celebrate the ingenuity of our Victorian ancestors by establishing the headquarters of Great British Railways in Darlington? Due to the extent of interest from hon. Members on both sides of the House in their constituencies hosting it, may we please have a debate in Government time?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Talking about early railway journeys always makes me nervous because we all remember that Huskisson, who was President of the Board of Trade at the time, unfortunately stepped the wrong way on the track and was run down by an early railway experiment.
However, my hon. Friend is right to ask me of all people to celebrate our Victorian forebears. I share a birthday with Her Majesty Queen Victoria, 24 May, which used to be a public holiday as Empire Day. Talking of birthdays, I have not yet wished the Chief Whip a happy birthday. Mr Speaker, did you know it is the anniversary of that distinguished gentleman’s birth?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We wish the Chief Whip many happy returns.
The spirit of Barry, Brunel and Bazalgette should be the guiding inspiration behind the Prime Minister’s levelling-up agenda. The Government are embarking on the biggest investment in our railway infrastructure, with £96 billion of taxpayers’ money being spent through the integrated rail plan. There will be £105 million spent on Darlington station thanks, at least in part, to the excellent campaigning work of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson).
The Great British Railways transition team is running a competition to identify where the national headquarters will be. Unfortunately I am not allowed to have favourites, otherwise I might suggest it goes to Midsomer Norton, which is mentioned in Flanders and Swann’s song “On the Slow Train.” As I am not allowed to be partial, may I wish Darlington and my hon. Friend every success?
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware that on Tuesday afternoon there was an urgent question on football governance, but it was very narrowly drawn in that it really just addressed one club, Derby County, important though that is. May we have a general debate on football governance, because that is a matter of deep concern across the House and from all points of the country, with particular reference to the shambles that is the finances of football, which is not entirely but partly driven by the rampant untrammelled greed of the owners of premier league clubs?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I know that this is a matter of concern across the House, and there was indeed the urgent question earlier this week. I think that many Members have strong views about the management of football in this country, and I am sure there is demand for a debate. I notice that the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee is still here, and I think it would meet with widespread support.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Voters in constituencies such as Blackpool South, and indeed Bury South, voted Conservative in large part because of the Prime Minister and his positive vision of levelling up and getting Brexit done. They voted Conservative and for this Prime Minister, not for a socialist representative. MPs should not be able freely to play a game of musical chairs around the Chamber of the House. Does the Leader of the House agree that Members should respect the democratic mandate afforded to them by voters, and will he make time for further debate on the recall of MPs legislation?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Is it respectful to voters, when the campaign has been carried out on one basis, to change the terms of engagement without the other side of the contract having any say in the matter? I have always thought that we as Members of Parliament should not be afraid of recall as an issue. I think that our constituents are sensible and wise, and they would never use recall frivolously, but would use it sensibly for cases where they felt something had gone very wrong. Of course, Members also have the opportunity to decide these things for themselves, and I recall the behaviour of Douglas Carswell, the former hon. Friend of many of us.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
It is now over three years since the Prime Minister promised to ban the abhorrent practice of gay conversion therapy, so when will the Government act decisively and bring forward legislation to ban the practice and ensure that the legislation, like that recently passed in France and Canada, makes it crystal clear that there are no loopholes for so-called consent?
Mr Rees-Mogg
A consultation has been taking place recently, so the hon. Lady can be reassured that the issue is at the forefront of the Government’s mind and, indeed, of the Government’s plans. Legislation is always subject to time and other events within the programme.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Leader of the House mentioned the rising inflation rate earlier and also referred to the rising costs of fuel for people. Can we have an urgent debate in Government time on fuel poverty, because the measures he discussed earlier are not enough to support people going through that crisis? As MoneySavingExpert’s Martin Lewis has pointed out, that affects families across all the nations of the UK, but it is especially hard hitting for families in constituencies such as Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, where we have a colder climate and higher costs because of off-grid considerations. Does the Leader of the House understand how critical and pressing the issue is for families dealing with the current crisis in their costs of living?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think everyone across the House understands how pressing the issue is. The rise in fuel prices on world markets has been extraordinarily rapid and sharp, and that is having an effect on family budgets. I reiterate what I said about the support that is available, with the £140 rebate for 2.2 million low-income households this winter. Other supports are available, and organisations such as local councils and citizens advice bureaux can also provide support to people.
I would also point to the other side of the balance sheet, with the rising incomes available to people through the increase in the national living wage to £9.50 from April, which is an extra £1,000 a year for a full-time worker, while 2 million families will get an extra £1,000 a year through our cut to the universal credit taper and the increase to work allowances. The Government are working this on both sides of the equation: both by helping people increase their incomes and by giving some support with the costs.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
With fuel prices rising, where newer tower buildings are installed with district heating, also known as network heating, leaseholders have no control over their heating provider. Is it not time that the Government reviewed the scheme and regulated providers? Will the Leader of the House ask a Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make a statement on the matter in the Chamber?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is right to raise the matter. It is noticeable how serious the concern about heating bills is, because it has been raised today by Members across the House. The Government are providing the help that I have mentioned and are doing things to help leaseholders in other areas, but I will pass on the hon. Lady’s concerns to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My city of York has developed an interest in how titles are assigned and in how they can be removed from people whose title takes the name of a geographical location. In 1917, Parliament enacted the Titles Deprivation Act to remove a title for the act of treason. Will the Leader of the House make time to debate new legislation that empowers local people to determine the circumstances in which titles are awarded and removed, and reflect on the geographical location from which titles are taken? York has a global reputation not just for its rich cultural heritage, but for the social values it espouses.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 is an extremely interesting Act of Parliament. An unusual process was adopted: rather than simply attainting the dukes who were on the wrong side of the first world war, it was decided to use classification. That was a successful means of legislating, although I understand that the successors to the dukes who were deprived could petition to have their titles restored if they so wished. As regards the award of territorial designations, that is a matter for the sovereign.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
In 2017, the then Department for Communities and Local Government advised that it was actively looking at ways to take forward the issue of redundancy modification orders. To date, however, no updates have been provided—indeed, the Department no longer exists. Will the Leader of the House please assist me by contacting the relevant Department and urging it to meet me to provide an update? The long wait for an answer is having a detrimental effect on my constituent and on many others across the United Kingdom.
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I have said before, I think it a matter of routine that Ministers should make themselves available to Members of this House when those Members have important constituency issues to raise. If the hon. Lady has had any difficulty in organising such a meeting, I encourage her to come to my office; I will do my best to help.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
May I ask the Leader of the House when we will have an opportunity to scrutinise the allocation of levelling-up funding? Stockport Council put forward a superb bid for the refurbishment of the Edwardian Reddish baths, fire station and library buildings into a new employment start-up space, learning centre and community hub. It ticked all the boxes: civic pride, employment generation, skills, community. No funding was given. If the Prime Minister is reallocating funds from his disloyal MPs, can we have them?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There is £4.8 billion in the levelling-up fund to help to regenerate town centres and high streets, upgrade local transport and spend money on cultural and heritage assets, and there is £2.4 billion in 101 town deals, investing taxpayers’ money in local economies. It is important to help our towns and cities in restoring local pride across the country. There are always more applications than ability to fund. That is a good thing—a good competitive spirit—and it shows that towns and cities are full of pride for their efforts, successes and histories, but there is not unlimited taxpayer money.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Albert Bartlett is one of the largest potato suppliers in the UK; its headquarters is based in my constituency of Airdrie and Shotts. I recently met Ronnie Bartlett to discuss the impact of Government policies on the agricultural industry and the challenges that the sector is facing in hiring both skilled and unskilled labour.
Our particular concern is the requirements in the provision of sponsorship for visas, with Albert Bartlett potentially being ineligible for the temporary worker visa scheme if it works with third-party producers. To make it possible for Members of this House to discuss how we can help companies such as Albert Bartlett to get the workers that they require and ensure that fresh and frozen produce remains on supermarket shelves, will the Leader of the House grant Government time for a debate on the impact on businesses of the Government’s immigration policies?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I would be delighted to have a debate on the virtues of potatoes, which, it has to be said, are my favourite food source—roast potatoes, chips, boiled potatoes: one can eat all sorts of delicious potatoes. So I wish Bartletts well as a major potato supplier. The hon. Lady probably did not realise how dependent my culinary contentment is upon her constituency business.
As regards the allocation of visas, there is a scheme for shortage areas to have special ability to apply for visas, but, having left the European Union, we want to try and ensure that our fellow citizens are able to get the jobs available. It is right that that is the priority.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
There is more than a whiff of “jobs for the boys” if the report in the Yorkshire Post is right—that the former Tory MP, now noble Lord Patrick McLoughlin is to be the new chair of Transport for the North. Given that Transport for the North’s responsibilities have been stripped back and that it has been ignored by the Government when setting out the clear level of funding that the north needs for transport, rather than what was announced in the integrated rail plan, may we please have a debate on whether the Government intend Transport for the North to be only a neutered talking shop?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We would have to set aside far too much time if we were to debate the many virtues of my noble Friend Lord McLoughlin, who is a former Transport Secretary. I do not know whether the rumours are true—I have not seen the report—but to come to this House and complain about the giving of a job in transport to a former Transport Secretary, one of the best informed people in the country about transport, is, in a word, eccentric.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Earlier this week I received notification that the Carleton post office in my constituency, which had previously been described as temporarily closed, is now permanently closed. Residents in Woodside join a long, long list of communities in my constituency who have had this vital service withdrawn from them. The biggest single reason is that the business model that the Post Office insists on simply does not make sense to retailers of any size. Can the Secretary of State, who owns the Post Office, be brought before this Chamber to give a statement about what he is going to do to address this crisis, before there are no more post offices left to shut?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government are committed to a UK-wide network of post offices, which is why we have set the national access criteria. Those require that nationally, 90% of the UK population should be within one mile of the nearest post office branch, and that nationally, 99% of the UK population should be within three miles of the nearest post office branch.
While post office branch numbers can fluctuate between areas and regions, the Post Office works hard with communities to ensure that service is maintained. That can include solutions such as mobile or other types of outreach services when necessary. There is a policy to deal with this, and the Government take the issue of access to post offices very seriously.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Bus services are absolutely crucial for my constituents in Blaydon as a means of getting to work and to important appointments, yet bus services face a real cliff-edge crisis with the ending of covid funding. We still do not have news of the bus service improvement plan funding, which, incidentally, appears to have been cut from the original £3 billion to £1.4 billion. May we have a debate in Government time about the importance of bus services and how we can support them to continue to serve our communities?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will say two things. First, the Government have a plan to spend £5 billion of taxpayers’ money on buses and cycling over the course of this Parliament. As people begin to go back to work—from today we can go back to work in our offices—it would be natural to expect the demand for bus services to increase, so that temporary closures ought to be reversible.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
May we have a debate in Government time on ambulance waiting times, which are becoming critical in Lancashire? People are waiting for hours outside the Royal Preston Hospital, where covid cases have risen rapidly. The Government announced the relaxation of measures yesterday, but infections and deaths are rising, and we also have a Nightingale ward set up at the hospital, which is causing major congestion and problems outside. Will the Leader of the House look into that?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I have said to other Members, I am always open to taking up specific cases with Ministers and Departments on behalf of individual Members in relation to their constituents. On the general point on ambulances, NHS England has given ambulance trusts an extra £55 million to boost staff numbers this winter, and the NHS has been supported this winter, including with £478 million as part of the enhanced hospital discharge programme, which frees up beds and therefore makes patient admissions at the front end easier. So considerable amounts of taxpayers’ money are being committed to helping the ambulance service, but, as I said, if there is a specific issue with a specific hospital on which the hon. Gentleman has not been able to get a satisfactory answer from the Department of Health and Social Care, my office will be more than happy to help.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Woodchurch leisure centre and the libraries in Greasby, Irby, Hoylake, Pensby and Woodchurch are really important to the quality of life and wellbeing of thousands of people in my constituency, including many living in areas of deprivation, yet all are under threat of closure as a result of savings that Wirral Council is required to make after more than a decade of brutal funding cuts by Conservative-led central Government. I note the Leader of the House’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) earlier this morning, but will he remind his colleague the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that when he came to office he said he wanted to
“raise living standards especially where they are lower”
and
“improve public services especially where they are weaker”,
and will the Leader of the House, as a matter of urgency, let us have a debate in Government time on the impact of central Government cuts on the provision of libraries and leisure centres?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We will have a debate, if we do have one, on £4.8 billion—the largest ever increase in core funding in a decade—being given to councils, in addition to £3.6 billion being given to local authorities to help with social care reform, £45 billion committed to help local authorities support their communities and local businesses during the pandemic, and £12 billion of direct support to councils since the start of the pandemic. Local councils have a democratic mandate and are there to make choices. When the local council makes choices that Members do not like, that is not the Government’s fault; it is a decision of the local council.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
High energy prices have many consequences, but one perhaps not always foreseen is the effect on the producers of carbon dioxide, and in the run-up to Christmas there was a real crisis. The Government put in place some short-term measures but they are coming to an end in a few weeks; may we have a statement from a Minister on what the Government are doing, because it appears they may be playing chicken with our national security?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The issue with carbon dioxide came to the fore in the autumn and the Government acted quickly to ensure that the carbon dioxide supplies continued. Obviously it is a matter of some commercial sensitivity because of dealing with a private company that, reasonably enough, seeks to make a profit out of its activities. I promise to highlight the hon. Gentleman’s concerns to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but I assure him that Her Majesty’s Government have not forgotten about this.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I am proud to say that the bank hub pilot in Cambuslang has been a resounding success, and the Post Office with its retail bank partners is looking to expand that across the UK, with five more hubs in the pipeline. Cambuslang community council is acting in a mentoring capacity to allow the proposed sites to share their expertise, so will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in Government time on the invaluable benefits that bank hubs can bring to improving access to cash and encouraging footfall in local high streets?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think that is a record. I think it is the first time that I have ever been asked by an Opposition Member for a debate to celebrate something that the Government have done, and which seems to be going well and be pleasing the hon. Lady, so I am very grateful for that. I wonder whether a bank hub might be the solution for the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) in place of Carleton post office. Even though the hon. Lady’s question was so politely and kindly phrased, I cannot promise a debate in Government time, but an Adjournment debate would provide a good opportunity to bring the subject to the wider attention of Members.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Last week, Her Majesty’s Government opened the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme with a referral pathway for particularly vulnerable groups, such as women and girls at risk, human rights advocates and, in particular, members of persecuted religious minorities, many of whom are in hiding. However, the first year of the pathway will offer places only to British Council members, GardaWorld contractors and Chevening alumni. Given the vulnerability of the minority groups I mentioned and the high level of interest from many of my constituents, my constituents and I seek from the Leader of the House direction from the relevant ministerial Department on how those in hiding—Christians living in fear of death—can actually access the scheme? They just need to know how to do it.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman always raises important questions about freedom of religion or belief and trying to protect those who are persecuted. The Government have supported about 3,000 people leaving Afghanistan since the end of Operation Pitting and have a scheme that will relocate an additional 5,000 vulnerable Afghans in its first year, potentially rising to 20,000 over the longer term. He asked specifically how people access this ability when they have to be in hiding. That is obviously a difficulty. It is not simple to answer how to overcome that, but the eligibility is there, and finding routes as to how people claim it will be part of how the Government organise the scheme. I will try to get him a more detailed answer from the Department.
Points of Order
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister persistently tells the country, through the House, that 420,000 more people are at work than pre-pandemic, but the Office for National Statistics shows that 506,000 fewer people are at work—the Prime Minister excludes the self-employed. Will you and Mr Speaker ensure that the Prime Minister uses accurate figures, to ensure that there is trust in the Government and that we realise that there are half a million fewer people at work, rather than 420,000 more?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I am sure he will realise that the content of answers to parliamentary questions is not a matter for the Chair, but he has obviously put on the record his concerns, which I am sure will have been noted by those on the Front Benches.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House, in answering the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) on the Greater Manchester clean air zone, may have inadvertently misled the House; he is certainly unaware of the facts. It is a ministerial direction, the Environment Act 1995 (Greater Manchester) Air Quality Direction 2019, that imposes a category C clean air zone on Greater Manchester. Further, section 8 states:
“The authorities must not vary, revoke or suspend…without the prior written consent of the Secretary of State.”
Last week, I asked the Leader of the House to urge his colleagues to do just that and revoke the direction. His response was that the Mayor should just get on with it. How can we correct the inconsistency in the Leader of the House’s answers to myself and to the hon. Member for Bury North and get on the record that this is a Government instruction?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He seems to have managed two bites at the cherry, including in business questions. Again, I have to say that that is not a point of order for the Chair, but the Member has put his concerns on the record, and I am sure the Leader of the House and those on the Government Front Bench will have heard what he had to say.
Backbench Business
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Uyghur Tribunal Judgment
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that the December 2021 Uyghur Tribunal’s judgment in London found beyond reasonable doubt that the People’s Republic of China was responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and torture in the Uyghur region; and calls on the Government to urgently assess whether it considers there to be a serious risk of genocide in the Uyghur region and to present its findings to the House within two months of this motion being passed, use all means reasonably available to ensure the cessation of ongoing genocide, including conducting due diligence to ensure it is not assisting, aiding, abetting or otherwise allowing the continuation of genocide and fulfil its other obligations under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, accept the recommendations of the Fifth Report of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang and UK value chains, Session 2019-21, HC 1272, including black-listing UK firms selling slave-made products in the UK and putting in place import controls to protect UK consumers, and place sanctions on the perpetrators of this genocide, including Chen Quanguo.
I put on record my thanks to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China and the World Uyghur Congress, and to Rahima Mahmut and Dolkun Isa in particular. I also thank Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, who chaired the Uyghur Tribunal. He worked at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia between 1998 and 2006 and led the prosecution in the trial of Slobodan Milošević, the former President of Serbia, for genocide. I cannot stress enough that there is no person more qualified than Sir Geoffrey to assess the facts and determine whether there has been genocide, the crime of all crimes.
There is a lot of speculation in this place about people abdicating their legal and moral duties, and that is what this debate is about. The Government have a legal and moral duty to respond to the Uyghur Tribunal’s verdict and the evidence that was put before it. They must stop shirking that duty by using expensive Government lawyers to weasel their way out of acting—a course of action that is truly reprehensible.
As we know, the Uyghur Tribunal verdict last month, which was based on the facts, was crystal clear: genocide is taking place in the Xinjiang region of north-west China. What more do the Government need to see and hear? Surely the Minister cannot argue with the evidence presented to the tribunal, or its conclusion that human rights abuses, torture and genocide are taking place—a conclusion that it made while it was sanctioned by the Chinese Communist party. There is no plausible reason for the Government to ignore the conclusions of the tribunal. To do so is to quibble on a point of dubious legality, to ignore evidence and to ignore the moral and legal duty to act. When will the Government do the right thing, and—this is a question to which we desperately seek an answer—where is the organising force of this Government?
I am not interested in hearing the Minister discuss whether or not the Uyghur Tribunal is a competent court. That is irrelevant to this debate. I am focusing on the International Court of Justice’s Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro 2007 ruling, which completely blows that argument out the water. Let me remind the Minister of the legal situation that the Government are in. The ICJ ruled that
“a State’s obligation to prevent, and the corresponding duty to act, arise at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed.”
That is the crux of the issue, and of this debate. Those are the rules that the Government are operating under—unless the Minister intends to suggest today at the Dispatch Box that we are now making up our own rules on the hoof.
This House, too, has examined some of the most horrific evidence put to the Uyghur Tribunal. With one voice, Parliament agreed that genocide was taking place in Xinjiang against the Uyghur people and other minorities. That was a significant development. We joined our allies in America in taking that view, and were soon followed by Parliaments in countries across the world, including the Netherlands, Lithuania, Canada and the Czech Republic.
Today’s debate is about three things. First, now that the evidence has been presented to the Uyghur Tribunal, the Government must assess whether, under their ICJ obligations, they consider there to be a serious risk of genocide. Today’s motion will force the Government to present that analysis to the House within two months.
Secondly, if the Government will not or cannot do anything about the genocide, the mass rapes, the torture and the abuses taking place in Xinjiang, they should at least protect the British people. The British public—including my constituents and, no doubt, the Minister’s constituents—do not want to be assisting, aiding or abetting the Uyghur genocide. Only the Government can protect the British consumer by introducing import controls, blacklisting British firms profiting from slave labour, and toughening up the current toothless anti-slavery rules.
Finally, the Government should act in line with our closest international allies and use Magnitsky sanctions against Chen Quanguo, the architect of the misery in Xinjiang.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s excellent speech. Does she agree that there is also a case for labelling products that may have been produced in the context of the genocide, in that they were subject to Uyghur exploitation, so that consumers themselves can decide whether they want to buy ethically produced products?
Ms Ghani
I do agree with the hon. Gentleman. Our constituents want to know the heritage of the products that they are consuming, quite apart from the environmental impact. There is nothing to prevent the Government from ensuring that these products are labelled “stained with slave labour from Xinjiang”.
The tribunal spent a year, in London, amassing the most comprehensive body of evidence in existence on the Uyghur crisis. It took testimonies from academics, legislators and witnesses, and that is how it was able to make a legal determination. There was evidence of, for example, a massive drop in Uyghur birth rates in Xinjiang, which represents just one of the five markers of genocide. In one Uyghur region, birth rates are down by 84%. That accords neatly with the marker: the destruction of a people by stopping them having children, in just one generation. The tribunal labelled it “the biological genocide”.
Nowhere else in the world are so many women being violated in one place at the same time. Although the Uyghur region accounts for just 1.8% of China’s population, 80% of all birth control device insertions in China were performed in that region. Is the Minister really going to challenge the evidence with which the tribunal was presented? It heard that:
“Pregnant women, in detention centres and outside, were forced to have abortions even at the very last stages of pregnancy. In the course of attempted abortions babies were sometimes born alive but then killed.”
Those are the facts that were presented to the tribunal.
Witnesses’ testimonies were so horrific that I cannot list them all, but the Board of Deputies of British Jews compared this to the holocaust. Its president, Marie van der Zyl, wrote:
“Nobody could…fail to notice the similarities between what is alleged to be happening in the People’s Republic of China today and what happened in Nazi Germany 75 years ago”.
Having considered this evidence, the tribunal said that it was
“satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the PRC, by the imposition of measures to prevent births intended to destroy a significant part of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang as such, has committed genocide.”
I urge the Minister not to maintain the Government’s position of “Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil”. That is straight out of the CCP’s playbook. We have moved on, and the Government must now act. I am going to give the Minister some time in which to consider rewriting her speech, because the Government have now been told of the ICJ’s 2007 ruling, and we do not want to hear a rehearsal of their previous arguments.
Let me try to help the Minister by pre-empting some of the points that she may make. In the past, the Government have deferred to their holding statement that this is a matter for competent courts. That is irrelevant to today’s debate. The House now knows that the ICJ’s Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro 2007 ruling has blown that argument out of the water. Let me say it again: countries have a
“duty to act...at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of. the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed.”
That duty has long been triggered. When the Minister recently praised the tribunal for
“building international awareness and understanding of the human rights violations occurring in Xinjiang”,
that triggered the duty to act. Not only that, but when she
“urged the Chinese Government to engage with the evidence provided by the Uyghur Tribunal”
during a recent meeting with the Chinese ambassador, that triggered the duty to act. So does she agree with the ICJ ruling and agree that it is the duty of Governments, not courts, to continually assess whether there is a risk of genocide? Is she today going to change Government policy?
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government have no justification to deny that this is genocide?
Ms Ghani
The Government can fall back on the line, “It requires the United Nations to determine genocide”, but the discussion today is that once the Government are made aware that there is an intent of genocide, that unlocks legal obligations to assess that risk for the Government and for the British public.
As I just mentioned, the Government must carry out risk assessments and undertake due diligence to make sure that they and the British public are not at risk; it is a responsibility of Government, not the courts, following the 2007 legal determination. Before we are told, “It is impossible. It is impractical.”, let me point out that that is just wrong and that other Governments are acting. Our allies in America last month introduced a landmark piece of legislation, the Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act, which will stop imports arriving in America from Xinjiang, putting the burden of proof on companies to show that they are not selling goods stained red with Uyghur slave labour. Our public, the British public, do not want to be duped into putting money into the pocket of firms—British firms—selling slave labour products on our shelves. This gets even more absurd, because if we are set on seeking a free trade agreement with America, the Government must strongly consider how enthusiastic our allies in Washington will be about the prospect of the UK being the gateway for whitewashed Uyghur slave labour goods imported from Xinjiang through the UK and ending up in the United States. The Government’s position is now making us a laughing stock. There is no point talking tough but not taking any action.
Let me give the House some examples of that. Last year, the Government promised a bundle of measures
“to help ensure that British organisations are not complicit in, nor profiting from, human rights violations in Xinjiang.”
There has been zero progress. The Government promised
“a Minister led campaign of business engagement to reinforce the need for UK businesses to take action to address the risk.”
There has been zero progress. The Government promised
“the introduction of financial penalties for organisations who fail to meet their statutory obligations to publish annual modern slavery statements, under the Modern Slavery Act.”
There has been zero progress. We cannot even go to Xinjiang to do basic due diligence, so how can we prove that no slavery is taking place? We just have to act—the law is on our side.
Let me leave the House with the story of Tursunay Ziyawudun, a Uyghur camp survivor I had the honour of meeting last year. Many have argued that this is the most technically advanced genocide that has ever taken place, so survivors are really rare. Tursunay was tortured and later gang-raped on many occasions, and had an electric device inserted into her vagina. The biggest damage is that Tursunay feels ashamed, but it is us who should be ashamed that we have taken no action to stop her people being destroyed by genocide. We have taken no action to protect the British public and prevent those British companies from making profit on the back of this genocide. I urge the Minister—I know that Tursunay would be pleading with the Minister here and that the House, with its unanimous support for backing the previous amendment, implores the Government—to live up to their moral and legal obligation and carry out the urgent assessment of genocide in Xinjiang, and to do so for the Uyghur people and to protect the British public.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the next speaker, let me say that we have two important debates this afternoon. We have a good amount of time, but not an excessive amount of time, so I ask colleagues to bear that in mind and not to give over-lengthy speeches.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I am honoured to follow the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) and her powerful opening of this very important debate.
China has committed genocide against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang. That was the definitive conclusion of the Uyghur Tribunal in London. It is a definition that Governments around the world, including our own, have been nervous to arrive at. The right hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), when he was a Minister at the Foreign Office, wrote to me about human rights in China. He outlined that the Government recognised internment camps with more than 1 million Uyghurs, acknowledged reports of forced labour, and noted human rights violations, and so what did he propose? More research. Well, the research is in and the findings of the tribunal are loud and clear. I ask the Minister, does she unequivocally accept the tribunal’s findings of genocide? Does she consider Uyghurs to be at serious risk of genocide, or will the Government hide behind the international ramifications of this definition? A cowardly country would use that linguistic excuse. Shame on us if we choose that path. The Chinese Government’s actions must be stated for what they are: an apparatus of control and a systematic and calculated programme of ethnic cleansing against the Uyghur people. We can no longer say that we did not know. We need to ask ourselves: what does it mean to be complicit?
As a member of the Treasury Committee, I am particularly interested in the role played by financial institutions. Let us take HSBC, for example, a bank headquartered and registered in the UK. Last week, it came to light that it had purchased shares in Xinjiang Tianli, a plastic manufacturer owned by the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps. It is a Chinese-backed, state paramilitary organisation that has been subject to US Government sanctions for its role in perpetrating atrocities in the Uyghur region, and yet the UK has no legislation to prohibit HSBC and other UK firms from investing in organisations perpetrating human rights abuses in the Uyghur region. I urge the Government to draw up a blacklist of entities identified as perpetrating atrocities in the Uyghur region and to bar UK firms from investing in them. We simply cannot allow our financial institutions to bankroll these atrocities.
Although the responsibility to act must come from the top, I say to anybody watching this debate: “Do you have an HSBC account? Think about where your money is invested. What about your pension?” Last year, more than 100 MPs joined me in writing directly to the chairman and trustees of our pension fund, calling on them to divest from Chinese companies accused of complicity in gross human rights violations. We were relieved to receive confirmation that the fund is no longer invested in the Blackrock iShares emerging markets index fund, but similar concerns were shared by our staff and their scheme with Legal and General. They have taken it on themselves to secure a meeting with the institution next week to discuss how their contributions are being invested. I know that there is particular concern about investments in iFlytek, a company blacklisted in the USA for its involvement in the mass incarceration of more than 1 million Uyghur Muslims.
It is the responsibility of all of us to ask the same difficult questions. Meanwhile, I am waiting for answers from Amazon following accusations of its relationship with Chinese genomics giant, BGI Group. Last March, Amazon disclosed that it was using a modification of BGI’s covid-19 testing kit that would initially be used for its employee testing programme. Its partnership with the BGI Group comes despite a report published by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence in the United States that concluded that the BGI Group may be serving as a,
“global collection mechanism for Chinese government genetic databases.”
Amazon can hardly say that it did not know that because Andy Jassy, its chief executive, was serving on the commission at the time.
Whether through multinational financial institutions such as HSBC, global organisations such as Amazon, or lucrative pension fund investments, we have a shared responsibility to ensure that we are not complicit in genocide. Above all, that requires the Government to treat the findings of the Uyghur Tribunal with the severity that they deserve and require.
I thank other hon. Members for their courage in speaking out, in particular the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for her unwavering voice. I say to the Minister, if we look on, history will condemn our unforgivable cowardice and ask why those in power did not act, because this time, no one can say that they did not know.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate—yet another on China’s abuse of human rights. They are virtually a weekly event in this place, which is good. It is also good that many hon. Members from all parties—a growing number—are here in support of this cause, although I am surprised not to see the hon. Members for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), who take such an interest in Chinese matters, as we recently learned.
Yesterday in the Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool, a fellow sanctioned Member—perhaps I ought to declare an interest as a sanctioned Member of the House—made allegations that China has subverted our legislative programme by persuading Members of their lordships’ House to table amendments to an Act of Parliament. That was a serious allegation into which I hope the House authorities will now look, and it again underlines the danger that the Chinese state, the Chinese Communist party and its various tentacles pose even in the heart of democracy. We heard about that earlier in the week in the welcome urgent question granted by Mr Speaker and his welcome comments about ensuring the security of hon. Members in this place to protect them from the Chinese Government.
In the Minister’s response, I ask that she addresses the fact that we are still waiting for an answer to why the Government have given £80,000 of UK taxpayers’ money to an academic to produce a report on the China hawks—that is us—to lay bare some of the criticising parties who have given oxygen to all the horrendous things committed by China. That is being funded by UK taxpayers, which is outrageous and an insult to the freedom of speech which we cherish in this place and for which we have been sanctioned by the Chinese Government.
The incredible work of the Uyghur Tribunal is to be applauded, disseminated, publicised and spoken about at every opportunity. I repeat the praise by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) and congratulate her again on leading on the issue in the House. Sir Geoffrey Nice did a fantastic job and gave a moving and landmark judgment on 9 December.
The tribunal was carried out to the highest standard of proof with very qualified experts and witnesses from numerous fields giving valuable evidence. One might say that Sir Geoffrey Nice’s conclusions were quite timid or conservative compared with what they could have been, so in no way can the judgment be seen as sensationalist or unrealistic—quite the reverse. It was a finding of fact.
This House was right to move the motion, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden and passed on 22 April, that recognised the Chinese genocide against the Uyghurs. This House was right to pass unanimously my motion in favour of a diplomatic boycott, which I think we now have, although it is not entirely clear that it is a full diplomatic boycott, on 13 July. I welcome much of the Government’s action, as far as it goes, although those two motions were led by Back Benchers, not by the Government in Government time.
I congratulate the Government on some of their words of condemnation of what has been done by the Chinese Government, and I congratulate them on the sanctions that have been introduced, but there have not been nearly enough. The name of Chen Quanguo has been mentioned as the architect of repression in Tibet, which is now being repeated in Xinjiang. I welcome the business restrictions that have been brought in for those companies trading in Xinjiang to ensure that they are compliant with section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. I also welcome the measures recently introduced on the financing of infrastructure projects so that we do not have to rely on the deep pockets of China’s sovereign funds. In the UN, the UK has led on the condemnation of China human rights abuses. We have called for unfettered access to Xinjiang and other parts of China for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which of course has been denied. Those measures do not go far enough.
The Chinese Government are in denial. What did the Chinese spokesman say about the “so-called” Uyghur Tribunal? They claimed it was funded by the “terrorist and separatist” organisation, the World Uyghur Congress, and nothing but a
“political tool used by a few anti-China and separatist elements to deceive and mislead the public…The ‘Tribunal’ and its so-called ‘conclusions’ are mere clumsy shows staged by anti-China elements for their self-entertainment. Anyone with conscience and reason will not be deceived or fooled”.
I do not call the revelations that we heard in the Uyghur Tribunal—from women who had been raped, tortured and abused, and people who had been imprisoned and had their lives completely ruined—self-entertainment. The response of the Chinese Government, who are constantly in denial, is absolutely disgraceful, which is why it is so important that we continue to call them out in this place and beyond, and that we act with other fair-minded democracies and free nations around the world and their Governments to continue calling it out. There have to be implications resulting from this. It is not enough just to call it out.
Let us look at what the tribunal came up with. It is worth mentioning a few of its findings, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden has already done.
“Hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs…have been detained by PRC authorities without any, or any remotely sufficient reason, and subjected to acts of unconscionable cruelty, depravity and inhumanity.”
It found that many had been “tortured for no reason”, “detained in cages” and
“shackled by heavy metal weights”.
It also found:
“Detained women—and men—have been raped and subjected to extreme sexual violence…Detainees were subjected to solitary confinement in cells…At ‘classes’ in detention centres, detainees were forced to learn and sing songs in praise of the CCP…Detainees were forced to take medicines by mouth or by injection that affected reproductive functioning of women and possibly of men”.
Pregnant women were forced to have abortions, as my hon. Friend mentioned. The report also found evidence of “intense monitoring” and “surveillance” of Uyghur people:
“Neighbours, members of families and other members of the community were incentivised or coerced in various ways to spy on each other.”
Many people have been disappeared. It is not just famous tennis players who get disappeared. They are the ones we know about, but so many others are just disappeared. The report also found:
“Children as young as a few months were separated from their families and placed in orphanages or state-run boarding schools.”
Such cruelty to family life. It goes on:
“A systematic programme of birth control measures had been established forcing women to endure removal against their will of wombs and to undergo effective sterilization by means of IUDs which were only removeable by surgical means…Uyghur women have been coerced into marrying Han men with refusal running them the risk of imprisonment for themselves or their families.
‘Family friends’—mostly Han men—have been imposed on Uyghur households for weeks at a time to monitor and report on the households’ thoughts and behaviours”—
of those Uyghur families, while:
“A large-scale enforced transfer of labour programme…emblems of Muslim faith were removed…acts of faith were punished…The use of the Uyghur language has been punished”
and restricted, while
“assets have been arbitrarily appropriated by”
the authorities, and there have been “relocation of occupiers”, or large-scale displacements, and intimidation of Uyghur families living outside China.
I was glad that the Home Secretary, in her response this week, agreed with the allegations about the intimidation of the diaspora of Chinese people and Uyghurs living around the world. The Foreign Office has also admitted to the harassment that has been going on in the UK, to intimidate people into silence. That, absolutely, needs to be reported to the police.
Those are all things that the tribunal found. President Xi Jinping is at the top of those who have the responsibility, the culpability, for what is going on. He bears the primary responsibility. Those things are the direct result of policies, language and speeches promoted by President Xi and others. Furthermore, those policies could not have happened in a country with such rigid hierarchies as the People’s Republic of China without implicit and explicit authority from the very top. Let us lay the blame where it belongs. We do not take issue with the Chinese people; we take issue with the Chinese Communist party Government, which is responsible for all the pain that they are causing and have caused to so many.
The tribunal decided:
“Torture of Uyghurs attributable to the”
Chinese Communist Government
“is established beyond reasonable doubt…Crimes against humanity attributable to the”
Chinese Communist Government
“is established beyond reasonable doubt”,
and,
“on the basis of evidence heard in public, the Tribunal is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the”
Chinese Communist Government
“by the imposition of measures to prevent births intended to destroy a significant part of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang as such, has committed genocide.”
There is no getting away from it—there is no denying it, as the Chinese Government would have us do.
It is therefore important that we take the step today to acknowledge the truth that the Uyghur tribunal has uncovered and that we redouble our pressure on our Government and other Governments to ensure that there are implications for those findings. Virtually every day—I have a clutch of press cuttings from the past few weeks—there are stories about the malign influence of the Chinese Government throughout the world: opposition who are disappeared, or people who just spoke out against sexual abuse; instances of Chinese agents spying on students in our universities; Beijing-backed students harassing pro-democracy activists on our university campuses; threats to Taiwan internationally; or building fake US battleships for war games and target practice.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, as many, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), have. Does he not think that, if the Government do not lead on that, they open the door to universities, businesses and others to fall away from doing anything and not taking a lead? For example, he mentioned universities. The key point there is that, when we speak to them, they all claim that they did not really think that it was up to them to do it; it was up to the leadership of the Government. The Government will set the terms, and we will start to clean the system once that happens.
Tim Loughton
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Leadership from the Government is essential. All of us—certainly the three musketeers on the Conservative Benches who are sanctioned—have asked repeatedly for a proper audit of the tentacles of the Chinese Communist party, which extend into our boardrooms, our university campuses, our schools, our businesses and Parliament, as we saw with the exposé earlier this week. The Government must take a lead in the country and for other like-minded nations, which need to be able to act together. Through the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, which my right hon. Friend admirably co-chairs, bringing parliamentarians together who are now prepared to speak out and act in unison across the world will have and is having an impact.
We must redouble those efforts after all the revelations that we have heard about the malign influence of the Chinese Communist Government across the world, culminating in the recent speech by Richard Moore, the head of MI6, about the China threat that we all face.
What is to be done? Today, we need to get the Government to face up to, acknowledge and agree to our international obligations under the law of genocide. To repeat the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden made, the United Kingdom is a party to the genocide convention. All state parties to the genocide convention are under an obligation to refrain from taking an active part in the crime of genocide and, additionally, to prevent the commission of genocide by others, using all means reasonably available and within their power. That includes situations in which one state alone would be unable to prevent genocide but in which its actions in combination with the efforts of other states may do so.
The obligation to take concrete steps to prevent genocide is triggered
“at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed”
or is already being committed. The UK is on notice and has the requisite awareness of the serious risk that genocide is being committed or will be committed against the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region of China and is therefore under an obligation to act to prevent that genocide. It could not be clearer.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman comes to the nub of the matter. This is an appropriate moment to remind ourselves why the genocide convention is framed in such a way: because throughout history, when genocide has happened, we have always played catch-up and said that we did not know. We live in a very different world now, in which we do know; that is why we have the obligation, which has now been triggered, to act. We can call it out in the House, but only the Government can act.
Tim Loughton
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and has been a doughty champion of the cause. We cannot stand by and wait for further atrocities to happen. We are under a duty to trigger the processes that recognise that genocide has been and is still being committed, and to take appropriate actions to counter it. That is absolutely clear. I cannot envisage anything the Government could say in response today that would get them out of that obligation, now that the evidence has so clearly, so starkly and so skilfully been put forward by Sir Geoffrey Nice.
That is our first requirement, but there are other things that the Government can do. Following the lead taken in the United States with the recent Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden mentioned, we have a Bill on the Order Paper: the Tibet and Xinjiang (Reciprocal Access) Bill, which has specific sanctions that we can bring to bear against Chinese Government officials to reinforce the point that we are absolutely serious. We need further high-ranking officials, starting with Chen Quanguo, to be sanctioned to show that we are absolutely clear about who is responsible for the ongoing haranguing and victimisation of the Uyghur people.
This must happen. I have no doubt that at the end of the debate we shall all will it to happen, with no votes demurring, but the Government must take the lead. They must do what they are required to do under international law and under the moral duty that we have all recognised today and stand up for those people who are still being victimised by the horrendous torture meted out by the Chinese Communist party Government.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing the debate on an issue close to the heart of everyone in this Chamber. I thank Sir Geoffrey Nice and the World Uyghur Congress for their incredibly important work day in, day out for months.
As foreign affairs spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, I put it on the record that all Liberal Democrats everywhere stand shoulder to shoulder with the Uyghur people, who are being persecuted as we speak.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) secured the first debate on this subject in Westminster Hall in January 2019. Here we are, this many years later, and the Government have still done nothing. That is shameful, and it is painful for those victims, who watch debates such as this, which every time give them that bit of hope. They reward those of us who speak out with very humbling certificates of appreciation. I was looking at mine, which I have proudly on my desk. It was given to me by the World Uyghur Congress and on it is a quote from Nobel laureate and holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel:
“what hurts the victim most is not the cruelty of the oppressor but the silence of the bystander.”
In this Government, I am afraid, a bystander is all they have.
When hon. Members have spoken out against the appalling treatment of the Uyghurs and voted to declare a genocide last year, we were challenged by sceptics. I have no doubt that we will all go back to our offices and open our inboxes to find another debunking email, likely from the Chinese themselves, saying how everything we are saying is untrue. I am afraid to say that with the tribunal comes irrefutable proof that has been carefully put together. The tribunal provides the clearest evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt, and what harrowing evidence it is of abhorrent violence, children taken from their families, systematic sexual violence against women and girls, forced sterilisation and abortion, forced cultural assimilation and desecration. One witness said:
“I have no words to describe the inhuman cruelty of the violence.”
After recounting the torture she endured, she said:
“I can’t cry and I can’t die, I must see them pay for this. I am already a walking corpse, my soul and heart are dead.”
What is even more concerning is that British consumers, right now, are unknowingly complicit in this violence. It has been noted in previous speeches today and in reports led by the hon. Member for Wealden and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee that we need to clean up our supply chains in this country. I am appalled that the Government still have not implemented the recommendation not just of the BEIS Committee but of the Foreign Affairs Committee to ban the import of cotton products known to have been produced in Xinjiang. This helps businesses, by the way. After much consumer pressure, Nike, Adidas and H&M declared that they were on the same side of the Uyghur people and that they would clean up their supply chains. The result was that the Chinese Government pressed people in China to stop buying those brands, whose reward for taking a brave stance was to lose profits in China. It should not have to be that way. We can legislate in this place so that companies do not have to make those choices.
Incidentally, it is not just about cotton; it is also about the supply of data, which is an issue I have previously raised in this House. One such company is ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok—I dare people to floss at their earliest convenience, and I mean the dance rather than looking after their teeth. It is deeply concerning that our children, who are the main consumers of TikTok, are inadvertently helping a company owned by ByteDance. It is concerning because ByteDance signed a co-operation agreement with the Chinese Communist party’s Ministry of Public Security. According to Human Rights Watch, ByteDance plays
“a significant role in facilitating and entrenching the Chinese government’s censorship, surveillance, and propaganda regime inside China.”
Another company, Huawei, has been implicated in using surveillance technology in the detention camps, so we need to fix the supply chains not just of goods, but of data.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On that very valid point—I congratulate the hon. Lady on what she is saying—over the past few weeks, Intel and Tesla have hit the headlines because of trading with Xinjiang. The US introduced a Bill at the end of December banning companies from using goods from Xinjiang province in their supply chains. Does she agree—I think everyone in the House today does—that we should do that in this House and encourage all our European neighbours to do the same thing?
Layla Moran
I thank the hon. Member very much for his intervention. I agree absolutely—that is literally what I was about to say—and the fact that he said it reinforces the point that there is appetite in this House to legislate for this, and we should do so at the earliest possible opportunity. The US has already done that and, moreover, it has done the very basic thing of saying that a genocide is occurring. The US Government have said, cross-party, that that is happening, yet our Government still have not—notwithstanding the fact that it is our legal, not just our moral, obligation to do that now.
Let us reflect on why the Government are perhaps being so reticent. The fact is that, since 2011, our trade with China has doubled, going from £46 billion to £93 billion. It is also worth noting that trade grew at its fastest rate when the now Foreign Secretary was Trade Secretary. In her role as Trade Secretary, she refused to take amendments to the Trade Bill—now the Trade Act 2021—on human rights and genocide.
I have been delighted to read that, since then, there has been a bit of a damascene conversion and I understand that the Foreign Secretary has agreed privately that a genocide is occurring. If that is what they think privately, think what it would mean if they came out and said it publicly and worked with Cabinet colleagues, so that across all Departments, we can remove this blight from our statute book. It should not be left to individual consumers and individual companies to make those choices. We know that a genocide is occurring. We know that acting is the right thing to do. I urge the Minister to do what other Ministers before her have perhaps been scared to do: speak the truth, declare that a genocide is happening to the Uyghur people, and do not be that silent bystander.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this debate. She spoke brilliantly about what the issues were and laid them out in some detail. I will touch on a few of those but many others will deal with them in more detail.
I say from the outset that the whole issue and the plight of the Uyghurs should trouble us not just because people are now being persecuted, executed, put into forced labour and sterilised. Those alone are enough to make us in this House, of all Houses around the world, stand up and say, “Enough.” But this is also about the wider concept: the more that China—the Chinese Government—gets away with doing this and the more that Governments turn their heads when confronted with the problems of calling it out, the more the Chinese Government extend their reach and form of despotic government around the world. We have seen what their purpose is: to countermand the idea of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. They have made that very clear. At every stage, they think that what we do, what we believe in, is weakness and therefore they sell their concept to and impose it on others.
What is happening to the Uyghurs is a huge wake-up call to those of us in the free world who believe substantially in the concept of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, because it is being eroded even as we hold this debate. We cannot assume, as we legitimately did early after the end of the cold war, that we had somehow won this battle and that it was therefore likely that every other country would have to embrace these principles. They do not. We have to fight for them.
The point about the debate—this is why I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden so much on having managed to secure it—is that we need to be able to say to our Government, my Government, that they need to be at the forefront and leading on tackling this challenge, not dragged along behind. To be fair to the Government on the Uyghur problem and China in general, they are not alone. Countries across Europe also simply will not admit that there is a problem; Germany has been dragging its feet on this for ages. However, that does not excuse us, because other countries, such as Australia, Canada and the United States, have now all decided that the issue is clear.
If we cannot decide on this, what can we decide? As my hon. Friend pointed out, the tribunal made it very clear. It was a properly constituted tribunal. The Government say it has to be a proper court. It is not a court of law, but the tribunal was constituted correctly and as would be done at the UN. The phrase it used, which is critical, is that it found “beyond reasonable doubt” that the Chinese Government are perpetrating genocide, crimes against humanity and torture against the Uyghurs. It is surely only reasonable that we urge the Government to do the next thing. Instead of arguing about whether the tribunal is a proper court, if the Government themselves suspect at any stage that such things are happening, it is essentially inherent on them, given the 1948 issue, to pursue this and to urgently assess whether they consider the Uyghurs to be at serious risk of genocide. I am happy to take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Minister on this, because we may need to satisfy ourselves that it is within the power of the Government to do that. It is. The Government can do anything that this House wishes them to, and this is also internationally legal.
Will the Minister respond on why the Government simply do not want to do this? We had debates here and tried to amend the Bill three or four times, and we came pretty close, I have to say. However, the reality is that I am not even asking the Government to declare this a genocide. I simply ask them to make this urgent assessment and to follow the evidence of what they find, following the tribunal and all the other areas of information. I ask the Government to start that process, that is all. I am not asking them to reach a conclusion at this particular point. I just want them to start the process. That seems very small.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The truth is that the Government have not said anything, so we do not know whether they think the tribunal makes sense or what it says is a reality. We do not know that they disagree with it. It would be great if the Minister would get up and tell us whether they think the tribunal is reasonable, has reached reasonable grounds and has come up with good evidence, and whether they actually believe that a genocide may well be being perpetrated. That is all I ask—whether it may well be being perpetrated. If so, we may then start the ball rolling.
The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) mentioned that trade with China had doubled. In all this, we now discover that the country is so out of control that it does not report that it has a desperate virus breaking out to the World Health Organisation in time for it to get control measures in place. That has now led to millions of people dying all over the world. That is what happens when we refuse to bring such a country to book.
That is the problem that we have right now. China is committing genocide and hounding the Taiwanese. It has broken an international treaty over Hong Kong. It is persecuting and incarcerating ordinary, peaceful democracy campaigners in Hong Kong, persecuting Christians, Falun Gong and others, and smashing churches. It has killed Indian soldiers on its border and militarily occupied the South China seas. How much more are we prepared to stand by and watch, and all for the sake of cheaper goods? Do we say nothing? Shame on us! Shame on us that that plastic thing that we bought last week was 10p cheaper than it might have been had it been made somewhere else. Is that a reason to turn our backs on the suffering and persecution of the people who deserve us to stand up for them?
All I ask is for my Government to take a lead. We have a list of people who should be sanctioned—I am also co-chair of the all-party group on Magnitsky sanctions—and they are: Chen Quanguo, the architect not just of the Uyghur suppression, but of Tibet; Peng Jiarui, the deputy party secretary and commander of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps; Sun Jinlong, former political commissioner of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps; and Huo Liujun, former leader of the Xinjiang public security bureau. We have called for all of them to be sanctioned. They are being sanctioned by the United States. It is not as though, by suddenly standing up, we would be alone; those people have already been sanctioned.
Ms Ghani
A number of colleagues in this House have been sanctioned. The Uyghur Tribunal was sanctioned. Individuals who gave evidence to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee were intimidated and sanctioned. When will the Government stand up and sanction those who are undertaking the genocide and when will they have the confidence to back not only the House and the Select Committees, but sanctioned colleagues?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The truth is that, ironically, nothing stops the Chinese Government from sanctioning absolutely everybody who speaks up against them. We here have been sanctioned. In fact, I noticed the other day that the Chinese embassy devoted a whole page to telling the world that I was a liar and a cheat and somebody who basically misled everybody about China. Okay, I am fine with that, if that is what it wants to say. The point is that our Government can now make it clear to everybody else that the problem lies at the heart of the nature of that Government. This is a despotic, brutal, dictatorial regime that cares nothing for human rights, nothing for the rule of law, and, at the end of the day, nothing for the lives of ordinary people.
I end by simply saying that, today, we see through a glass darkly. We are looking at history repeating itself. Because we chose not to speak out, because we chose to appease a despotic, brutal, dictatorial and murderous regime in the 1930s, the situation got worse and worse and we ended up with 60 million people dying. We must speak out now. The Government must lead on this and learn the lessons of the past. The Uyghur Tribunal was absolutely clear that it is almost certain that genocide is taking place. Please, will my Government stand up, broaden their shoulders and say that we will no longer turn our heads away no matter what the consequences are? It is time to make the case for Uyghurs to be represented, supported and helped against this terrible genocide.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for securing the debate, and for her excellent speech; indeed, we have heard excellent speeches from other Members, too. I commend the tremendous work of the BEIS Committee.
I have lost count of the number of times that I have spoken in this place to urge the Government to take stronger, more robust action against the Chinese Government’s blatant attack on human rights and freedoms. The Government’s response to the genocide taking place in Xinjiang has fallen woefully short. This is hardly global Britain at its best. Today, the Government have a choice—the choice to stand on the right side of history and fulfil their obligations under the genocide convention. As a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Uyghurs, I have been highlighting the plight of the Uyghurs for several years, and have heard at first hand harrowing testimony from Uyghurs, their family members, and those who have witnessed what I can only call inhumane and chilling abuses.
The Uyghur Tribunal is, to date, the most extensive independent legal investigation of allegations of genocide and crimes against humanity in the Uyghur region. The judgment of the tribunal, published in December ’21, found that the Chinese Government are in fact perpetrating genocide, crimes against humanity and torture against the Uyghurs. I hope that Members from across the House will join me in paying tribute to the brave individuals who gave testimony at the tribunal. I pay particular tribute to Rahima Mahmut, who I consider a friend and a true inspiration. Her heart-wrenching story is a sobering reminder of why the Uyghur genocide is a scar on the world’s conscience.
History will remember us, and we have a moral duty to speak out against these egregious abuses. Next week, we will mark international Holocaust Memorial Day—a reminder that we have let genocide take place before. There have been powerful interventions from faith communities, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, passionately calling on the Government to condemn the horrors taking place in Xinjiang, which include forced labour, detention, sterilisation, organ harvesting, denouncement of religion, sexual abuse, rape and torture. Despite that, the Government continue to drag their feet on holding China to account.
Ms Ghani
Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the evidence given to the Uyghur Tribunal? What particularly comes to mind is the evidence about factory-sized crematoriums built in the prison factory camps. Let us just think about what that looks like, and which period in our history that reminds us of. How long will we sit here and do nothing?
Afzal Khan
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. It is harrowing, isn’t it? It reminds us of what happened to the Jewish community here in Europe. Those things are repeating.
Will the Minister heed the judgment and recommendations put forward by the Uyghur Tribunal and finally commit to sanctioning Chen Quanguo, the chief architect of the Xinjiang genocide? Will she also take steps to ban imports from Xinjiang and protect Uyghurs living in the UK from harassment and intimidation by the Chinese authorities?
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I thank and praise the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for securing the debate, and thank all the Uyghur Tribunal members, and everyone who has been part of this struggle, which will go on, I am sure.
Genocide is a barbaric act. It is the worst crime that humanity is capable of. Our country has a duty and a UN obligation to speak up and take action on genocide where it occurs. The Chinese Communist party is committing genocide against the Uyghurs. That is the main ruling of the Uyghur Tribunal—a ruling made here in London by a jury of independent experts. It is now time for the Government to stop avoiding their responsibilities. They must fulfil their UN obligations on the prevention of genocide. The first step towards doing that is to conduct an urgent assessment of the Uyghur genocide in Xinjiang.
The genocide taking place in Xinjiang is subtle. There are no gas chambers; instead, there is forced sterilisation, there is the forceable transfer of children and there are hard-labour camps. Make no mistake, though: these actions are targeted at the Uyghurs to destroy their way of life—their existence.
As many Members will know, I have raised many times the issue of forced organ harvesting in China. The Uyghur tribunal heard evidence from Ethan Gutmann, an investigative journalist who said that young and fit adults in their late 20s were being killed so that their organs could be extracted and sold. That is worse than evil: it is calculated evil, squeezing every last bit of value out them so that even in death the bodies of these poor souls serve the Communist party in China.
On the wider issue of how we deal with China, many Governments around the world, often including our own, are fearful of speaking out. China’s new silk road initiative has seen it invest in almost 70 countries worldwide. Here, China is involved in the Hinkley Point nuclear power plant and High Speed 2, and was almost involved in the new 5G mobile network. I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who raised such matters in our group; I was amazed by what I heard.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Something just struck me as the hon. Lady was quite rightly laying out where China is involved. I do not know whether she is aware, but it is now clear that most of the polysilicate that goes into the making of solar arrays is mined in Xinjiang, so every one that we put up supports slave labour in Xinjiang. That is an important point.
Ms Rimmer
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point, which the public will have heard.
China was nearly involved in our 5G mobile network, until the Government came to their senses. It is all part of China’s foreign policy strategy to spread its influence. The reality is that it will only get harder to speak out about China as its influence grows. At some point, we have to say that enough is enough. We know what is happening in Xinjiang to the Uyghurs. This time, we cannot say we did not know: the evidence is there in the tribunal carried out here in London.
The time has come for our Government to work with democracies around the world on a complete realignment of our relationship with China. We are all far too economically dependent on China, which is why the Chinese Communist party thinks it can do what it wants to the Uyghurs, to the people of Hong Kong, and perhaps soon to Taiwan as well.
The longer the Government wait, the harder it gets. They can start by supporting the motion, which calls on them to provide to the House with an assessment of the Uyghur genocide. The time to stand up is now: for humanity’s sake we cannot afford just to stand by and watch this go on. I call on the Minister to be brave and lead the way on this issue in her Government.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The verdict of the Uyghur Tribunal—that there is proof “beyond reasonable doubt” that the People’s Republic of China is committing crimes of torture, crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide, as defined under international law, against the Uyghur population in Xinjiang—is further confirmation of what we in this Chamber already know. Indeed, in April last year the House passed a motion that stated that it
“believes that Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in…Xinjiang…are suffering crimes against humanity and genocide”.
As we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), who brought the debate to the House, there has so far been, in her words, “zero progress” from this Government.
We are not the only ones who are aware of what is going on; others are doing something about this situation. The US State Department has determined that China’s violations constitute genocide, as have the Parliaments of Canada, Lithuania and the Netherlands. Yet there is still no condemnation from the Government. There is shocking evidence of arbitrary detention, re-education camps, forced labour, the destruction of cultural sites, torture, rape and sexual violence and enforced sterilisation. Probably worst of all, and what I heard most harrowingly today, are the abortions of children who are alive at the late stage of pregnancy, who are then murdered by the Chinese state authorities. Those of us with an understanding of the Chinese Communist party’s motives, its actions in the past and its scant regard for human rights have been voicing our concerns loudly, despite attempts to keep us silent. I thank the hon. Member for Wealden for securing today’s debate and her relentless pursuing of this cause.
Although the Uyghur Tribunal has shone further light on the atrocities being committed in Xinjiang, the fact that we are relying on an unofficial body to do that, and the fact that these crimes are not prevented in the first place and continue to take place today, is shameful and an abject failure of the international community. As Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, chair of the tribunal, stated:
“Had any other body, domestic or international, determined or sought to determine these issues, the tribunal would have been unnecessary”.
For too long, as China has been emerging as a global superpower, a blind eye has been turned to the Chinese Communist party’s gross human rights abuses, but these cannot and must not be ignored any longer. Sadly, the International Criminal Court announced in December 2020 that it would not investigate allegations because China, as a non-member, was outside its jurisdiction. Furthermore, the possibility of further investigation by referral from the United Nations Security Council is hamstrung by the simple fact that China would simply use its veto to prevent that.
The UK Government therefore need to stop hiding and get away from the refrain of, “The policy of successive UK Governments is that any determination of genocide or crimes against humanity is a matter for a competent court.” It is not; it is a matter for a competent and active Government, and every voice and every party in this House is asking for urgent action—and now.
It is of grave concern that even despite the findings of report after report and investigation after investigation, the UK Government do not appear to accept the findings of genocide or their moral and, as has been said repeatedly today, legal obligation to prevent and punish these horrific crimes. It is nearly nine months since the House stated that what was happening in Xinjiang was genocide and more than one month since the Uyghur Tribunal published its judgment. We need to hear unequivocally from the Minister what assessment the UK Government have made of these verdicts, and what their next steps will be.
Have the UK Government explored the prospect of a UN Human Rights Council commission of inquiry using their Human Rights Council seat, as recommended by the Foreign Affairs Committee? If the Chinese Government continue to stall and prevent in-country investigations, the UK Government should propose a Human Rights Council motion that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights should conduct an investigation into atrocities in Xinjiang from outside China. I hope the Minister is making some notes, because I would like to hear the answers to these questions today. Even if the Chinese Government continue to deny international observers access to Xinjiang, there is a great deal of evidence that can be used to verify the extent of crimes being committed there, as shown by the volume of evidence received at the hearings of the Uyghur Tribunal.
When it comes to access to Xinjiang and other regions in China, we can learn from others. The USA enacted the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act 2018, which denies Chinese Government officials access to the US if they are responsible for implementing restrictions on Americans who seek access to Tibet. I put it on the record today that I would like to join colleagues in the House who have been sanctioned and are fearful to travel to China in putting forward a visa application to see whether we will be denied. If we are, it will be a golden opportunity for the UK Government to step up and say, “That is fine. You are denying our own democratic representatives. This is what will happen to your officials.”
Ms Ghani
I just want to challenge the hon. Member’s point. I think he said that the sanctioned MPs are “fearful” of the sanctions and travelling to China. May I put it on the record that none of the sanctioned MPs are fearful of travelling to China or of the Chinese Communist party?
Chris Law
I am glad that the hon. Member has addressed that point. I did not directly mean those who had been sanctioned, but others beyond that who would like to say and do more. I fully appreciate that there are no sanctioned Members here who fear the Communist party state and its behaviour towards its inhabitants.
I was talking about reciprocal access to Tibet. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is no longer in his seat, and who I work with as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Tibet, has persevered with the Tibet and Xinjiang (Reciprocal Access) Bill. I once again urge the UK Government to give the Bill their full support and to enact its provisions immediately. I look forward to hearing a response on that this afternoon.
Indeed, many have commented that the illegal invasion and occupation of Tibet was the testing ground for the Chinese Communist party, and that the lessons learned from the oppression of Tibetans have been applied to Xinjiang, yet none of us across the decade since then has done enough to stand up for the people of Tibet, and this is the consequence of silence. It would be worthwhile, therefore, if the UK Government reversed the regrettable decision taken by the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, in 2008 to disregard the previous recognised autonomy of Tibet and accept Chinese authority over the region.
In 2011, Chen Quanguo was appointed the party secretary in the Tibetan autonomous region after the Chinese Communist party vowed never to let the protests that happened there in 2008 occur again. He was the key individual behind blanket surveillance, a heavy police presence, arrests and disappearances, and re-education camps in Tibet. From 2016, he has employed the same security measures in his repression of the Uyghurs, only this time on a far expanded scale. He was able to move seamlessly from repressing one group of people to another, because as far as the Chinese Communist party is concerned, he got results and he got away with it in the international community.
Chen is named in the Xinjiang papers released at the Uyghur Tribunal, and the UK Government must step up sanctions against him and his colleagues involved in perpetrating these gross human rights abuses. So I would like to hear from the Minister what further names have been added to the Magnitsky sanctions. The USA has sanctioned him, and it is again ahead of the UK, having just passed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act banning all imports from Xinjiang unless a company can prove that they were not made with forced labour.
The UK could be doing exactly the same, but instead is choosing to sit on its hands, and the Government have in fact rejected the BEIS Committee’s recommendations to help tackle slave labour in Xinjiang. The Minister needs to explain why, and I urge the Government that this needs to change. Given that one in five garments globally are made from the cotton of Xinjiang—which means that just about every one of us in this Chamber will be wearing such a garment—and that other key products such as solar panels, which have been mentioned, are produced there, the UK needs to toughen up and enforce its own legislation. Furthermore, the UK should be pressing for the International Labour Organisation to conduct a full investigation on the Xinjiang region, to verify the extent of forced labour there as a matter of urgency.
The recent integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy called for more trade with China, but that potential trade liberalisation cannot come at the cost of forced labour in Xinjiang and weak words and inaction from the UK Government on these grave human rights abuses. As we have heard, the current Foreign Secretary, in her previous position as International Trade Secretary, facilitated a doubling of trade with China. The world cannot be picked off nation by nation, each turning a blind eye to genocide for the sake of trade deals.
I echo the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), who is no longer in his place, in saying that we need to work with democracies across the world because democracy is fragile, and that is fundamentally what is being undermined as we do nothing here. Instead of focusing on trade, and whipping Members to vote against anti-genocide amendments to the Trade Bill, atrocity prevention should be the priority. It is deeply regrettable that the UK Government, like others, failed to recognise and prevent the atrocities in Xinjiang before they reached the levels that we are currently witnessing.
Finally, the UK Government cannot appease China, given these crimes against humanity. It is imperative that the UK Government go beyond words of condemnation and use every single possible avenue to end the persecution and to pursue the punishment of those who have instigated and participated in it. The Chinese Government must be held to account for their abhorrent crimes, and held to account now. Given the overwhelming evidence, and given that every single person in this Chamber is saying, time and again, “Please act, and please act now,” I expect nothing less than that from the UK Government Minister this afternoon, to show that we are not cowardly; and I also expect to hear her accept that to do nothing would be an utterly shameful abandonment of our legal and moral duty, as well as our own humanity.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for securing this vital debate, and for her willingness to work across the House in standing up against the genocide taking place against the Uyghur in Xinjiang.
Last April, this House rightly voted unanimously to declare the persecution of the Uyghur as a genocide. The evidence is compelling, and despite the deeply disappointing response of the Government to date, I am very proud that this House took the decision that it did. The principled position that the House has taken was unequivocally reinforced by the verdict of the Uyghur Tribunal that we are debating.
I pay tribute to the courage that the hon. Member for Wealden and her colleagues have shown in standing up to the bullying and intimidation of the Chinese Government. The fact that she and other hon. Members have been sanctioned by Beijing for simply doing their job is an affront to our democracy and to the House. We on the Opposition Benches stand in solidarity with all Members of this House and of the other place who have been sanctioned, along with Geoffrey Nice QC and leading academic Jo Smith Finley.
The evidence of genocide in Xinjiang is compelling and conclusive. The crime of genocide requires proof of intent, and it is clear from the evidence presented to the Uyghur Tribunal, and from the legal opinions set out by the Newlines Institute in Washington in March 2021, that the atrocities that are being perpetrated against the Uyghur are not the random acts of some rogue individuals but the result of a conscious, carefully orchestrated campaign of oppression and persecution being conducted by the Chinese Government.
The evidence is clear, both through the persecution and through its results. There is the mass surveillance and arbitrary detention of more than 1 million Uyghur and other minority groups; the torture and inhumane treatment; the rape, abuse and forced sterilisation of women; the enforced separation of children from parents; and the denial of the Uyghurs’ right to practise their religion or speak their language.
We all saw the footage on “The Andrew Marr Show” of shaven-headed bound Uyghur men being led on to trains at gunpoint, and the squirming, live on television, of the then Chinese ambassador. We have seen the video bravely recorded by Merdan Ghappar from inside the forced labour camps. We have heard the first-hand accounts from Uyghur women of the forced birth prevention techniques by the authorities in Xinjiang.
The impact of those horrifying practices is also clear. In May 2021, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute published evidence that birth rates in Xinjiang fell by almost half between 2017 and 2019. Perhaps most tellingly, the Chinese Government’s own data shows that Xinjiang’s birth rates fell by one third in 2017-18. For those reasons, it is absolutely shameful that the UK Government continue to refuse to fulfil their moral and legal obligations to rule on genocide and to support the will of the House.
As a signatory to the 1948 genocide convention, the United Kingdom is legally bound to take all reasonable steps to punish and prevent genocide, yet the Government, as so often, have failed to match their duty to their actions. It is also deeply concerning that with the international courts effectively paralysed last year, the Government refused to support cross-party attempts to amend the Trade Act 2021, which would have allowed UK courts to make a binding preliminary ruling on the genocide.
I was consistently clear, when speaking from the Dispatch Box as the shadow Minister with responsibility for China, that robust action must be taken on the genocide taking place in Xinjiang and on China’s oppressive and irresponsible behaviour more widely, to which I will return. I welcome my successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), to her place and I greatly look forward to continuing to work with her on these important issues.
On responding directly to the genocide, it is important that the Minister updates the House today on the following matters—although I see that she is not in her place. First, has she made any progress in applying Magnitsky sanctions to a broader number of senior Chinese Communist party officials and entities responsible for serious human rights violations in Xinjiang, including Chen Quanguo, who has already been sanctioned by the United States?
Secondly, have the Government managed to build wider support for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to gain access to Xinjiang, in particular by working to engage countries, many of which are friends and partners of the UK, that have shamefully helped to protect China from international scrutiny? If the Minister believes that access to China is impossible, will she press the High Commissioner to conduct an investigation from outside China? Thirdly, why have we seen so little action on strengthening section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015? Companies have a responsibility to demonstrate that their supply chains are free of forced labour, so when will we see meaningful sanctions introduced for non-compliance?
Successive Conservative Governments since 2010 have been naive and complacent in their dealings with China. The so-called golden era policy saw Conservative leaders turn a blind eye to human rights and national security issues in the narrow and unbalanced pursuit of commercial interests. Our Government appear to be simply observing from the sidelines as China is not only persecuting the Uyghurs but, more widely, attempting to undermine the liberal democratic world order and impose its own authoritarian worldview by rising roughshod over individual liberties, the security and independence of other countries, and free and fair trade.
We see this agenda being enacted every day in the crushing of democracy in Hong Kong—I note that somehow there are still no UK Magnitsky sanctions on Carrie Lam. We see it in the sabre-rattling in Taiwan, whose airspace is being buzzed almost daily by Chinese military aircraft; in the debt trap diplomacy which sees poorer countries in effect losing their political autonomy as they struggle to pay back Chinese loans; and in the illegal manipulation of markets through measures such as dumping and the theft of intellectual property on an industrial scale.
However, we also see the weakness, over a decade, of the UK Government in the face of Chinese state-backed companies buying up significant amounts of the UK’s critical national infrastructure, including 33% of Hinkley Point, and including our water utilities and Heathrow airport. There appears to be no Government strategy to help universities stand up to the pressure placed on faculty and individual lecturers to censor their comments about events in Xinjiang, and nothing appears to have been done about pressure being applied by pro-Beijing activists to pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong and here in the UK. Worse still, in February 2021 a report produced by the think-tank Civitas accused 14 of the UK’s top 24 universities of having ties with Chinese weapons conglomerates and military-linked research centres, and in that same month it was reported by The Times that nearly 200 British academics were being investigated on suspicion of unwittingly helping the Chinese Government to build weapons of mass destruction.
These are serious issues that the UK Government must address as a matter of urgency. We need a more coherent approach and a clear strategy. The Chinese Communist party respects strength, consistency and unity, and it is contemptuous of weakness and division. I therefore hope that the Government will heed Labour’s calls for them to rebuild the alliances with our European allies that they—this Government—have broken, in the face of the shared challenges that we face in relation to China, but also to undertake a complete audit of every aspect of the UK-China relationship, from politics to business to the media to academia and our scientific community. A more resilient, strategic Britain, working in partnership with our international partners, will be better placed to send a signal to Beijing that its criminal actions will not be tolerated.
Today the Government have an opportunity to draw a line under their shameful golden era policy once and for all. Today the Government have a chance to show that they will no longer turn a blind eye to the horrific crushing of a people, a culture and a language. Let us hope that today they will take that chance.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
So far, the speeches in this important debate have been disturbing, powerful and heartfelt. There is clearly cross-party support for the motion. I thank the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for securing the debate and for responding to the recent tribunal judgment, and I thank every other Member who has spoken.
The Uyghur Tribunal, led by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, is the most extensive independent legal investigation to date of allegations of genocide and crimes against humanity in the Uyghur region. The Uyghur Tribunal judgment, published in December last year, found it “beyond reasonable doubt” that the Chinese Government were perpetrating genocide, crimes against humanity and torture against the Uyghurs. That should be enough for the UK—our Government—to agree that genocide is taking place in Xinjiang.
In April 2020, this House unanimously agreed to a motion declaring that Uyghurs in Xinjiang were suffering crimes against humanity and genocide. There was a clear parliamentary consensus on the issue, as I believe there still is now. However, since then the Government have not done enough to push back against the atrocities. It has already been said in this Chamber that our Government need to stand on the right side of history, and I implore and encourage them to do so. Will the Government follow the House and recognise these atrocities and breaches of the United Nations convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, and play a leading role?
Democracy is in retreat across the globe, but the Government must be rock solid in their commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. I remind the House of the real experiences involved, many of which have already been discussed: the unbelievable situations inflicted on Uyghur men and women, including mental torture, physical abuses, rape, isolations and killings. We have already heard about babies being born and then killed. None of these things should be happening in this day and age. We must not be silent bystanders; we all have to accept responsibility. Our Government need to act for the United Kingdom.
Ms Ghani
As the hon. Lady has mentioned, the evidence presented to the Uyghur Tribunal is gruesome and it is hard to comprehend the numbers involved. Of course the Chinese Communist party had the opportunity and the absolute right to present to that tribunal, but it was unable to because it is afraid of the spotlight.
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is surprising and a little disappointing that the UK Government also did not come forward and give whatever evidence they had to the Uyghur Tribunal? Perhaps the Minister can respond to that in her closing remarks.
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Lady for that remark, and all the others she has made. They are totally on point. It is astonishing, shocking and an absolute disgrace that our Government did not participate and give evidence and that they have not come forward with a statement agreeing with the judgment that took place last month. It is a disgrace that we should have to stand here trying to cajole and encourage our Government to take the spotlight, take the lead and take control.
These abuses against humanity should not be happening. Our Government have a history of slavery, in the past; we need to make sure that we are doing better than we did in the past. We can do better and improve our history by standing with a whole community of people being wiped out in Xinjiang. We need to stand against the Chinese Government and for the Uyghurs.
Even those who avoid the camps that I have spoken about find themselves enslaved. Uyghurs in Xinjiang suffer under intense surveillance, and much of the rural population have been moved into labour factories in the western region of the province. Research seen by the BBC showed that up to 500,000 people are being forced to pick cotton for long hours and with no rights in Xinjiang. Will the Government accept the recommendations of the fifth report of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee? Will they force UK companies to finally rid their supply chains of forced labour?
Finally, as I have already said, will the UK take a leading role and work with our international partners to end this infliction on the Uyghurs and hold those responsible—the Chinese Government—to account?
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing today’s debate, and I commend her and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who is no longer in his place, for their very powerful contributions.
The brutal reality that crimes against humanity and acts of genocide can still occur in 2022 is unbelievable. The tribunal’s judgment vindicates what the Uyghur people have been telling us for far too long. Beyond reasonable doubt, the Uyghurs have been persecuted and subjected to torture, rape and sexual violence, forced sterilisation, forced labour and murder by the Government of the People’s Republic of China.
There is so much more, but simply listing each atrocity, one after another, does not lend enough weight to each act—not when 12 million people are suffering for no reason other than their religion or ethnicity. The judgment makes for sober reading. It describes the depraved actions against the Uyghurs, which are, for most of us, unimaginable. Witness evidence describes the desecration of mosques and places of worship, long prison sentences for practising religion, punishment for speaking the Uyghur language and land and money stolen by the state. If there were a tame end of the scale, and there is not, this would be it.
Witness evidence describes how hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs detained with no cause have had their fingernails ripped from their nail beds and have been beaten with sticks and shackled with heavy weights at their feet, sometimes with their hands connected, for months on end, which is unimaginable. The judgment recounts the evidence from a young woman who was gang raped by policemen while a crowd of 100 was forced to watch. There are details of sexual violence so horrific that it is difficult to repeat. There are stories of prominent community members who were disappeared and of children as young as a few months old who were separated from their mothers—literally every parent’s greatest fear.
The tribunal heard evidence that young, fit Uyghurs were subjected to forced organ harvesting, supported by a pattern of disappeared detainees, the co-location of the detainee hospital and a crematorium, and the hugely lucrative organ market in China. Although I acknowledge that this allegation was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence presented has been acknowledged as presenting the possibility, which is a sickening thought.
The tribunal found that torture of Uyghurs and crimes against humanity
“attributable to the PRC is established beyond reasonable doubt”.
More significantly it found that
“beyond reasonable doubt…the PRC, by the imposition of measures to prevent births intended to destroy a significant part of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang as such, has committed genocide.”
The Chinese Government, unsurprisingly, have refused to accept these findings, calling them “absurd” and “sheer lies and disinformation”. The UK Government must, in the strongest possible terms, reject those assertions from China.
The great personal risk taken by every witness who bravely gave evidence must not be in vain. We must provide some assurances and show our support. I say without hesitation that the Uyghur people have my support. I support the calls for the Government to assess the risk of genocide in East Turkestan, which is the minimum required to meet their international obligations, but we should be giving more than just assurances and the bare minimum.
What concrete, measurable steps will the Government take to protect the rights of the Uyghur people? Will the Government join allies such as the US in calling this exactly what it is? In 1948, following the second world war, 39 countries signed the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, which was drafted so that the horrors of the preceding years could not be repeated. The Prime Minister has argued that a determination of genocide cannot be made by a body other than the International Criminal Court. That might be technically true, but the international community has found itself in a position where such a criminal prosecution simply is not possible.
China is outside the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and, as a member of the UN Security Council, has veto powers on cases taken to the International Court of Justice. For the very reason that a criminal case cannot be brought, I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider his stance. It is clear that the lack of a judgment from one of these bodies does not equate to a lack of evidence of acts of genocide.
Ms Ghani
The hon. Lady is making a very powerful speech. I want to refocus her, because I do not want to have the Minister wasting our time by referring to the wrong debate. This is fundamentally about the 2007 ICJ ruling, not the old debate about who determines genocide. This is about the intent of genocide and the Government’s responsibility for assessing whether they are comfortable with that or not, does she agree?
Margaret Ferrier
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, I am glad for the clarification and I hope the Minister will consider it in her remarks.
In exactly one week, we will be in this Chamber again, this time to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day, and this year’s theme is learning from genocide. Would it not be timely if the Government chose the following few days to stand up against the current acts of genocide in the world, and to show how the UK continues to learn those lessons and advocates for the voiceless?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, let me thank the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for setting the scene so incredibly well, factually and passionately, and the other right hon. and hon. Members who have made incredible contributions. I am pleased that so many have turned out today for this debate to add their support. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) referred to being a voice “for the voiceless” and that is what we are in this House today. We are speaking up for those who are not able to speak.
We will never know the whole programme of what has happened to them. We have had some indication through the tribunal of what has taken place, but that gives us only a small portion of vision into what has taken place. It is crucial that this ongoing lack of rights is talked about and a plan must be in place, as always, to state what more we can do to help. The hon. Member for Wealden and others have referred to examples of despicable crimes against the innocents of this world. These atrocities burden us and make our hearts ache when we think of those people, who do not have the opportunity that we have in this country of freedom and liberty, and the opportunity to practise our religion. I declare an interest; as chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief, this issue is close to my heart, and I know that it is close to the hearts of everyone in this Chamber.
I think we are all agreed that the findings of the tribunal are inherently repulsive and abhorrent because of what took place. The sheer scale of the human rights abuses is unspeakable and hard to comprehend, but it must be spoken about. Forced sterilisation, forced labour, rape, brainwashing and other heinous violations of the dignity of the human person have been perpetrated by the Chinese communist party against the Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities. These are some of the most horrific human rights abuses happening today in this world and they must cease. Right hon. and hon. Members have compared some of the atrocities of today to the holocaust of 75 years ago, which was clearly genocide. As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West just said, this time next week we will have a similar debate and many of us here today will be here next week with the same message but for a different occasion. It will be about lessons learnt, but what lessons have been learnt? That is the question I am asking myself. What has some of the world learnt in relation to what has taken place? The Chinese Government have learnt absolutely nothing. They have pursued their dreams of building a greater China and their influence seems to be everywhere. The Chinese Government’s blatant disregard for human rights is evident. It is chilling to consider that such crimes persist, and that, once again, the world stands idly by as genocide occurs.
I respect the Minister, as she knows, but what we are all asking today is that our Government and our Minister act as we wish them to do. The hon. Member for Wealden referred to the ICJ and that is where the focus is, and it is where our Government focus and ministerial focus needs to be as well. In light of the evidence, I ask my Government and my Minister to act, because more just must be done. The UK must use its position on the UN Security Council and its broader influence on the multilateral stage to push for a UN mechanism to collect and preserve evidence of the atrocities that the Chinese authorities perpetrate each day—even as we are having this debate—against the Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang province. I believe that the utmost efforts should be made to safeguard against hackers who aim to destroy that evidence and subvert justice, fuelling a culture of impunity for even the most evil of crimes.
I cannot stress enough how fundamental it is to establish such a UN mechanism. Without such systems in place, the hope of delivering justice diminishes dramatically. Syria and Myanmar offer examples of how such a mechanism could be established, further strengthening the case against delaying action. The UK, our Minister and our Government are in a very strong position to show leadership in the area, sending out a message that the UK will not tolerate human rights abuses at any stage, even from strategic trade partners. We have to address that issue in the debate, because if we are to have trade, our trade agreements must include accountability for human rights issues. My goodness me, does China need to be made accountable!
It should go without saying that the UK should also ramp up sanctions against Chinese Communist party officials who commit such crimes. The hon. Member for Wealden entirely understands, as we all do, that examples of Government inaction are, unfortunately, numerous. She outlined the things that the Government have not done and that we all believe they need to do. Given that China has imposed sanctions on Members of both Houses, hesitancy in taking action is totally unjustified.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. This debate is about the Uyghurs and we are all speaking about them, but it is also about the Tibetans, whom the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) referred to, and about Christians. I am a Christian, as are others in this House. What is happening to Christians? They cannot worship in church, because their churches have been destroyed. They cannot have freedom of worship, because they are spied on. They cannot have jobs, earn for their families or participate in education, because they are Christians.
The same is happening to the Falun Gong, who face organ harvesting on a commercial level: the Chinese take their organs and sell them on to other people in the world, which is despicable. It is hard to fathom such cruelty—it is totally horrendous, and China must be made accountable. Like other hon. Members, I have met some of the Falun Gong; they are some of the most gentle and lovely people you will ever meet. Why are they persecuted just because they have a religious view?
I look to my Government—not just “this Government”, but my Government—and to my Minister for the leadership that I and all of us expect. I urge them to ponder their moral obligation and imperative to act swiftly in response to China’s moral and ethical depravity, because that is exactly what it is. The Chinese Communist party’s physical and biological attacks against the Uyghurs constitute crimes against humanity. It is my hope today that our Government—my Government—will agree to take more steps to condemn and repeal those repugnant practices. If not, I would like to know why the UK Government are failing to act while others such as the US Administration are confident in calling those practices what they are: a genocide and a grave violation of human rights and international law.
As I mentioned in an intervention on the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), the US Administration took steps at the end of December to ban companies from using goods from Xinjiang province in their supply chains; I referred to Intel and Tesla, and the hon. Lady referred to a large number of other companies. If we are going to do some practical things to hurt China where it needs to be hurt—in the pocket, in the courts and in the economic livelihood it wants to hang on to—those are the things we need to do. I look to the Minister and the Government to do just that.
We should act as we would expect others to act in our times of need. I respect the Government’s long-standing policy that any determination of genocide should be made only by competent courts, but I refer again to the hon. Member for Wealden, who mentioned the International Court of Justice. That is the focus of this debate and of what the hon. Lady said. It is a way of making Governments and the Chinese Government in particular accountable. When it comes to Governments and non-judicial bodies that are important, we cannot stand by and not speak up for those facing horrific acts of human rights abuses.
Today, the Minister, the Government, must lead. They must acknowledge the brutality against the Uyghurs and others, use the International Court of Justice and sanction Chinese officials at the top of the league. It is not one of the leagues one wants to be at the top of, and China is right up there when it comes to abuse, human rights abuses, discrimination, hatred and brutality on an unheard-of scale. I speak up again for ethnic minorities, and for Christians, and those of other beliefs and no belief, who in China today are second-class citizens.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We are moving on to the wind-ups. About 24 minutes are allotted to all the Front Benchers, including the two minutes for Nusrat at the end. That is an indication for those who are taking part in the next debate; they should start making their way towards the Chamber.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this important debate.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for her outstanding work in keeping the plight of the Uyghur people at the forefront of the minds of people in this House. The way that she laid out her case this afternoon is a reminder that, despite having been targeted and singled out herself by the Chinese Communist party, the Uyghur people have no greater champion in this House than her. I hope that those monitoring this debate will note that threats and intimidation will not stop Members of this House speaking out against and calling out the appalling genocide that is taking place in Xinjiang.
As we heard from every speaker this afternoon, last month the Uyghur Tribunal found beyond any reasonable doubt that the People’s Republic of China is responsible for crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide. Although very welcome, the tribunal’s detailed findings of mass detention, systematic rape, forced re-education, forced labour, mass surveillance, child separation, psychological trauma, forced sterilisation and the destruction of the Uyghurs cultural and religious way of life confirmed what we already knew and have known for quite some time.
The question for us in this House and for the Government in particular must be: for how much longer must we continue to collect more credible evidence of what is happening before we and other democratic nations take a co-ordinated stand against actions of the Chinese Communist party? How do the Government plan to use what means they have to ensure the cessation of that genocide, including ensuring that—as many Members said—we in this country are not inadvertently assisting, aiding or abetting by supporting the Chinese economy? As much as the Government may recoil from the idea, they will have to step up. They will have to show leadership on the issue because, having had the tribunal sit in London, it is inescapable that our responsibility in international law is now clear: when a state learns of a risk of genocide, it is legally obliged to act.
My first question to the Minister therefore is: since the judgment of the tribunal was delivered, what assessment have the Government made of the findings and do they now agree that the Uyghurs are indeed at serious risk of genocide? Since the tribunal’s findings, what discussions have the Government had with international partners, non-governmental organisations, businesses and others to ensure a co-ordinated international response?
On 28 June last year, in response to the public petition, the Government said that they
“will continue to urge the Chinese authorities to change their approach in Xinjiang”.
So I have another question for the Minister: how is that working out?
As the hon. Member for Wealden and others said, the Government’s response should, at the very minimum, be to blacklist UK firms that trade in goods produced using slave labour, and to place a strict import ban on goods that we know originate in Xinjiang camps, or whose raw materials have been grown in those camps. As we have heard, last month, President Biden signed a Bill banning imports from Xinjiang to the United States; it puts the onus on the importer to prove that goods were not made using forced labour. I urge the UK Government to follow President Biden’s lead and explore the possibility of banning the import of cotton products, solar panels and other products that we believe to have been wholly or partly produced in the labour camps of Xinjiang. Also, there must of course be genuinely meaningful Magnitsky sanctions taken against those perpetrating the atrocities, and against those profiting and growing rich by doing business with the perpetrators.
The Uyghur Tribunal had to be independent and unofficial. As its chair, Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, explained, the International Court of Justice could not take this case, because it can look only at cases that have been approved at the Security Council, over which China has a veto. It is highly unlikely that an independent international court will make a genocidal determination any time soon, but I would strongly argue that this does not mean that the tribunal’s judgment carries any less moral authority than it would have done if it had come from an international court. The bottom line is this: whether the tribunal was official or unofficial, now that it has taken place, the UK Government cannot contend that they do not know what is happening in Xinjiang, and they have a moral imperative to act now.
One route to consider was put forward by Sophie Richardson, the China director at Human Rights Watch. She proposed that a United Nations Human Rights Council motion be tabled, asking that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights investigate the atrocities in Xinjiang, even if that has to be done, as another Member said, from outside China. Additionally, we could accept the recommendations of our Foreign Affairs Committee and explore the prospect of a Human Rights Council inquiry on the treatment of this beleaguered minority Muslim community; and of course we should step up sanctions against Communist party officials involved in perpetrating these gross human rights abuses.
The Uyghur people have been subjected to widespread abuse, the scale and ferocity of which is unparalleled in modern times. That is a stain on the world. I hope that the world is waking up to the fact that it can no longer turn a blind eye to this. It can no longer wring its hands and issue hollow words of sympathy when it feels that it has to. In April, the House passed a motion declaring that Uyghur Muslims in China were victims of crimes against humanity and genocide. That view is shared by the Parliaments of Canada, Lithuania and the Netherlands, and the US State Department has also determined that the violations against the Uyghurs constitute genocide. In December, the United States announced a diplomatic boycott of next month’s winter Olympics because of the ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity. Some may dismiss that as a token gesture, but if it leads to a concerted international effort to get China to change its ways, it will be seen as the start of a process, and as having been very worth while.
Finally, everyone who believes in freedom and democracy is indebted to Sir Geoffrey Nice and those involved in the Uyghur Tribunal. As we have said, it may not have had official Government support or backing, or the power to sanction China, but it has laid out clear and unambiguous evidence that a genocide is taking place, and gives democratic Governments and the United Nations the moral authority to hold those responsible to account. Minister, please do not let this House or the Uyghur people down; immediately recognise this genocide for what it is.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a real treat to have you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, as someone who has also taken a robust stand on human rights and on the question of China. A number of other Members across the House have gone above and beyond to be on the side of those who do not have a voice. It is also worth noting the associations and affiliations that so many of those who have spoken have, including the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), with his important work on Tibet. Professor Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, who led the panel of the Uyghur Tribunal, is a patron, along with me, of Hong Kong Watch and has taken an interest in China for many years. Members across the House have been very clear from the outset that we stand with the Chinese people, and it is with systematic abuse that we have an issue.
The hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) has surpassed herself in her speech today, underlining her empathy particularly for women but for all those affected by the regime in the Xinjiang region. Her leadership on this question is unparalleled. I am so sorry that the wrong diplomatic move was taken to sanction her, but I know that, in a funny way, it has emboldened her and all those others who have experienced that same sanction.
Debates such as this bring out the best about our Parliament because this is where we have so much cross-party agreement and where we, as a Parliament, can inform the direction of the UK’s foreign policy. We know that, in a week’s time, we will be talking about Holocaust Memorial Day, with which there are so many strong parallels. I know that the Minister has an eye to that awful but important and crucial commemoration next week, where we will talk about those in our communities who are still so affected by that dreadful holocaust from 1939 to 1944.
As we know, there is an extensive and growing body of evidence of the systematic persecution of the Uyghur minority, including detailed reports of more than 1 million people subject to arbitrary detention; forced labour; the enforced separation of children from parents; denial of the right to practise religion or speak one’s own language; and the rape, torture and forced sterilisation of women. That has all been laid out so clearly by the tribunal. I know that the Minister has a copy of the tribunal findings and I am sure that she has read that. We know also that the Uyghur people in Xinjiang province in north-west China have suffered enormously. The question is now, what will we do about it? We know that the tribunal itself is
“satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the People’s Republic of China, by the imposition of measures to prevent births intended to destroy a significant part of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang as such, has committed genocide”.
Today’s debate follows our vote in this Parliament in April 2021, ably contributed to by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who spoke so eloquently today about the need for the Government to have an overarching China strategy and to implement it as soon as possible. In that vote in this House, which was supported across the House, we recognised the plight of the Uyghur people and we called on the Government to take urgent steps in response. This does feel a bit as though we have raised this before and we are challenging the Government again over what practical action they will take. Will they inject some urgency into their response?
Many of us are disappointed that the Government rejected the excellent recommendations of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee last summer. When I visited Primark in my constituency, I was pleased to see that, since the report, it had begun to make different decisions relating to its supply chains, and I know that Marks and Spencer has as well. If the private sector has already begun to make those changes, there is no excuse for the Government not to look at their own record on the matter.
The Government also failed to incorporate the concerns of both Houses when we discussed what we called then the genocide amendment. I hope that the Minister will speak to that and tell us whether she believes that the right decision was taken on that amendment to the Trade Bill. We have this new fresh evidence. If the Government assess that it is correct, will we need to review that element of the Trade Act, which of course has completed its passage here? What does the Minister make of all this fresh evidence and do we need to look at that again?
I want briefly to draw out a couple of conclusions before allowing the Minister to come back because there is a lot of red meat, let us say, in this that she will want to get her teeth into. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) raised a specific challenge around the pensions of members of staff in this House. Some of the pension companies may well be unwittingly supporting poor practice and human rights abuses in the Xinjiang region. What is the Minister’s response to that? My hon. Friend also raised the question of HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) mentioned the support of the Board of Deputies of British Jews for this particular body of findings. That adds another strand of civil society support for that important work. He also mentioned that he is a great friend of Rahima Mahmut, who has gone through so much but is now the leader of the World Uyghur Congress.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) has raised in this House on a number of occasions the issue of the harvesting of organs, but her question today was whether there has been, to use one of the descriptions, the destruction of a way of life of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) encouraged the Government to inject urgency into their work.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), who spoke for the SNP, issued several challenges, in a similar vein to ours. The fact that so many of us are saying the same things lends weight to our arguments. First, will the Minister commit Government resources to assessing the situation in Xinjiang and undertake to look carefully at the evidence from the tribunal and to come back to this House as soon as possible to say what further action the Government need to take? Secondly, and once again as a matter of urgency, will she work with colleagues across Government to look again at Magnitsky sanctions on any senior officials involved in abuses who have so far escaped UK sanctions so that we can come into line with the US Government sanctions and there is not a cigarette paper between us and our partners? Specifically the name Chen Quanguo appears to be coming up in a number of briefings and evidence pieces we have heard about today. What is her view of that individual?
Will the Minister look at the wider issue of supply chains, as per the excellent recommendations from the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the investments of firms and state pension funds to ensure that any company with any links to the situation in Xinjiang is held to account, while boosting the legislation necessary to bring businesses into line with their moral obligations? As I mentioned earlier, in some regards, some companies are ahead of the game. How do we catch up? The Committee’s report includes a specific recommendation on the question of financial companies. What view does she take of that? What assessment has she and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office made of that?
On the role of the international community, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon mentioned the role of the International Labour Organisation. Does she support that? We are high-profile members of the ILO and have talked in this House on a number of occasions about the conventions that have come out of the ILO. What are we doing to apply those international conventions to this situation? Will she support the call for the correct UN individuals, such as Michelle Bachelet, to lead a delegation in the Xinjiang region to check whether what we have heard in London from the tribunal is correct and therefore could inform our foreign policy on China?
The brutal campaign of oppression in Xinjiang is a scar on the conscience of the world and the Labour party stands shoulder to shoulder with the Uyghur people. We want to work hand in hand with the Government and our Parliament to bring forward the urgent action that is required.
The Minister for Asia (Amanda Milling)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for securing this debate and for her dedication to human rights. I also thank hon. Members from across the House for their very insightful contributions, and I will endeavour, in the time that I have, to answer many of the points that have been raised.
The Government welcome the contribution of the Uyghur Tribunal in building an international awareness and understanding of the human rights violations in Xinjiang. We have been following its work very closely.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
My right hon. Friend has just referred to and welcomed the tribunal’s report, so why did the Government refuse to give evidence for the report when requested to by the tribunal?
Amanda Milling
Government officials observed the tribunal hearings in June and September, and Ministers and officials met the chair, Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, on several occasions to discuss its work.
As we have heard today, the tribunal’s findings contain further harrowing evidence of the situation that Uyghur Muslims and other ethnic minorities face in Xinjiang. Uyghurs and other minorities are being detained in political re-education camps, their religious practice is being restricted and their culture squashed. They are subject to invasive surveillance and repressive governance. There is also compelling evidence of forced labour and forced sterilisation.
The research that we have funded has uncovered more deeply disturbing details. Indeed, we have not hesitated to make clear our deep concerns at the highest levels. The Prime Minister raised the situation in Xinjiang directly with President Xi in October, as did the Foreign Secretary in her introductory call with her Chinese counterparts. I also raised our serious concerns with the Chinese ambassador just last month. We have been working alongside our partners to increase the pressure on China to change its behaviour. In March, the UK imposed asset freezes and travel bans on senior Chinese actors responsible for enforcing China’s repressive policies.
Amanda Milling
I am going to make progress, if my hon. Friend does not mind, because I do not have an enormous amount of time.
Ms Ghani
I just want to make sure that we capture the essence of what we debated on that particular point.
Ms Ghani
I am very grateful; I know that my right hon. Friend wants to respond to every point that was raised. If she is accurate in stating that the Prime Minister, the Department and herself are following not only the tribunal, but challenging the actors of genocide, how come she declared that they are unable to fulfil the ICJ obligation, because the duty is in place?
Amanda Milling
I will come back to the Government’s policy shortly, but please be reassured that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have all raised the very serious situation in Xinjiang with our counterparts.
In March, the UK imposed asset freezes and travel bans on senior Chinese actors responsible for enforcing China’s repressive policies. We took action alongside the US, Canada and the EU, demonstrating the breadth of concern across the international community.
Some Members have asked about future sanction designations for human rights violations in Xinjiang. As they will know, we do not speculate about future sanctions, but we keep all evidence under close review. The Government have taken robust action to address Uyghur forced labour in UK supply chains. We have introduced new guidance for UK businesses on the risks of doing business in Xinjiang and have announced enhanced export controls, as well as financial penalties, under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Taken together, those measures will help to ensure that no British organisation profits from or contributes to human rights violations against Uyghur people.
Amanda Milling
I will make some progress, because I want to address a couple of points that my hon. Friend made in her opening remarks.
In regard to the BEIS Committee report recommendations, we are grateful to the Committee for its thorough inquiry last year on forced labour in Xinjiang. The Government have given it careful consideration, including the recommendation to introduce a blacklist of companies that do not uphold human rights throughout their supply chains. Although we currently have no plans to introduce such a list, the Government are committed to tackling Uyghur forced labour in UK supply chains and are looking to take robust action.
Amanda Milling
My hon. Friend will get the opportunity to respond when I sit down; I have limited time.
On import controls, the Government are fully committed to tackling Uyghur forced labour in global supply chains, but the measures we have taken do not currently include import bans. However, we have announced a range of other measures, including a comprehensive review of export controls as they apply to Xinjiang.
We are also working closely with international partners. At the G7 last month, under our presidency, G7 leaders committed to working together to ensure that global supply chains are free from the use of forced labour. On international action, the UK has consistently led international efforts to hold China to account at the UN through global diplomatic efforts. We led the first two joint statements on Xinjiang in 2019 and 2020. More recently, last October, we helped secure the support of 43 countries for a statement on Xinjiang at the UN Third Committee.
Stephen Kinnock
Will the Minister comment on the point about the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees realistically never getting access to China? Will the United Kingdom Government therefore push the United Nations Human Rights Council to get a resolution so that the UNHCR can do an inquiry from outside China?
Amanda Milling
I will come to the UN shortly. The statement we secured in October demonstrated the breadth of international concern, with fresh support from Turkey, a member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, as well as Eswatini and Liberia. Through the UN statements, we have pressed China to allow urgent and unfettered access to Xinjiang for independent observers, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In recent national statements, we welcomed the high commissioner’s plans to publish an assessment of the available information on Xinjiang. I assure Members that the UK will continue to play a significant role in holding China to account for its gross human rights violations there.
Amanda Milling
No; we have had a long debate and I would like the opportunity to respond to it.
To monitor the evolving situation, we funded research reports from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and the Rights Practice, a non-governmental organisation, on how China is implementing repressive policies on Xinjiang. Those reports are credible and compelling and will inform future action. We will continue to fund future research.
The Uyghur diaspora also play a crucial role in our understanding the situation. We regularly speak to members of that community to inform policies and ensure that Uyghur voices are heard. Members expressed concern about reports of Uyghurs in the UK being harassed by Chinese authorities. We have repeatedly made it plain that that is unacceptable and have raised our concerns with the embassy.
Amanda Milling
I am sorry but I am moving on.
Throughout the debate Members have asked whether we will make our own assessment regarding the risk of genocide occurring in Xinjiang. The UK’s long-standing policy, under successive British Governments, is that any determination of genocide is a matter for a competent court rather than for the Government or non-judicial bodies. This long-standing policy is consistent with our legal obligations under the genocide convention and does not undermine our commitment to prevent and punish genocide. I reassure Members that the policy does not inhibit the UK from taking robust action to address the human rights violations and abuses in Xinjiang.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
My right hon. Friend has made her point; will she give way on it?
Amanda Milling
I am going to conclude.
The UK’s long-standing policy on genocide has not prevented and will not prevent the Government from taking robust action on human rights violations in Xinjiang through a broad spectrum of channels and international partnerships. We have a strong history of protecting human rights globally and the situation in Xinjiang is no exception to that. I reassure the House that we will continue to work with our partners, including the Uyghur people, to hold China to account for its appalling actions in Xinjiang.
Ms Ghani
I am not quite sure whether the Minister was here for the debate, which was based on the 2007 ICJ ruling that states very clearly our legal obligation to investigate if we believe that there is intent to commit genocide. That is exactly what we have put forward in the motion. The Uyghur Tribunal heard evidence and said that the evidence does exist for biological genocide, human rights abuses and torture.
The Minister stated that she would get back to me on a number of points on which she could not respond at the Dispatch Box, in particular in respect of blacklisting the firms that are exploiting British customers and putting on our shelves products made using slave labour.
I put on the record my thanks to the World Uyghur Congress, to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China and to all colleagues who contributed to the debate. I know there are huge concerns about sanctions on parliamentarians, but we are in a free world and should concentrate on the Uyghurs whose lives are being lost at the hands of the Chinese Communist party.
I am disappointed that the Minister wanted to quibble over the critical point of the debate, let alone to use clever legal arguments to get out of our obligation. I put on the record that it is difficult to draw a comparison between what it is happening in Xinjiang and the genocide of the Jewish people, but the Board of Deputies has already made its position clear. I also put on record the fact that at one point the late Rabbi Sacks was asked, “Where was your God at Auschwitz?”, and the Lord Rabbi Sacks said the issue was not about God but, “Where was man?” I want it to be on the record that men and women are putting a voice to what is happening in Xinjiang.
I respectfully ask that the Government allow our motion to pass; that they respond to the three principles and on the sanctions and blacklisting; and, in particular, that they return to the House in two months with an assessment of how they consider the evidence presented to the Uyghur Tribunal.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that the December 2021 Uyghur Tribunal’s judgment in London found beyond reasonable doubt that the People’s Republic of China was responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and torture in the Uyghur region; and calls on the Government to urgently assess whether it considers there to be a serious risk of genocide in the Uyghur region and to present its findings to the House within two months of this motion being passed, use all means reasonably available to ensure the cessation of ongoing genocide, including conducting due diligence to ensure it is not assisting, aiding, abetting or otherwise allowing the continuation of genocide and fulfil its other obligations under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, accept the recommendations of the Fifth Report of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang and UK value chains, Session 2019-21, HC 1272, including black-listing UK firms selling slave-made products in the UK and putting in place import controls to protect UK consumers, and place sanctions on the perpetrators of this genocide, including Chen Quanguo.
Lawfare and UK Court System
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I should inform the House that Mr Speaker has authorised a waiver under the terms of the sub judice resolution to allow reference in this debate to certain cases which would otherwise be subject to that resolution. This is because the issues to be debated relate to matters of national importance. The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the cases covered by the waiver.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of lawfare and the UK court system.
I am grateful to Mr Speaker for his having issued a waiver for this debate. I of course recognise why it is important that Members of this House do not seek to influence the outcome of cases that are before the courts, and if these matters were before a jury, I would be wary of raising them, but they are matters of national importance and I am grateful for the opportunity to raise them.
We are rightly proud of our legal system in this country. Britain is home to some of the fairest and best courts in the world. Centuries of jurisprudence mean that London is among the most respected cities from a legal perspective. However, what is attractive to legitimate businessmen is also attractive to those with nefarious intentions: there are those with exceptionally deep pockets and exceptionally questionable ethics. These people use our justice system to threaten, intimidate and put the fear of God into British journalists, citizens, officials and media organisations. What results is injustice, intimidation, suppression of free speech, the crushing of a free press, bullying and bankruptcy. It results in protection from investigation and gives encouragement to fraudsters, crooks and money launderers. It has turned London into the global capital of dirty money. In extreme cases, it can undermine the security of the state by allowing people to act as extensions of foreign powers.
This is lawfare—lawfare against British freedom of speech, lawfare against the freedom of the press, and lawfare against justice for our citizens. Lawfare is the misuse of legal systems and principles by extraordinarily rich individuals and organisations to destroy their critics and opponents. In many cases, our reporters face reputational and financial ruin in defending themselves from these malevolent cases; even if they win, the expense and impact are huge. The chilling effect on a free press is extraordinary. Some newspapers hesitate to cover certain topics, such as the influence of Russian oligarchs, for fear of costly litigation. In at least one case I know, the publication avoids the subject outright.
These sorts of cases, designed to silence criticism, are so prolific that they now have an acronym: SLAPPs, which stands for strategic litigation against public participation. Such lawsuits are based on laws on defamation, privacy, data protection and—ironically—harassment. In the UK the cost of defending a case, no matter how well sourced and how great the public interest, can run into millions of pounds. These cases are so time-consuming and costly because a disclosure process before trial can be dragged out by deep-pocketed claimants for years to financially hobble the defendant, even before they get to the ruling.
The issue is not just the financial and reputational damage inflicted by these cases; lives are also being destroyed. Defendants are unable to work. Every waking moment is spent looking over their shoulders, wondering who or what is just around the corner. This is not about legitimate recourse against journalists making mistakes—because, as we know in this House, they can and they do; it is about shutting down scrutiny through fear.
Early in 2021, Russian Opposition leader Alexei Navalny published a video investigation into President Putin’s palace on the Black sea. In the video, he waved a copy of “Putin’s People” by Catherine Belton, a much respected Financial Times journalist at the time. Just two months later, Belton and her publisher were suddenly served with a series of lawsuits, filed over the course of six weeks by four Russian billionaires and the state-run company Rosneft—that, I think, gives away that the Russian state is involved.
Media lawyers with decades of experience in such cases said that they had never seen a legal onslaught of such scale and intensity. Those cases dragged on for over a year, and the cost of that year alone ran into the millions—£1.5 million for Catherine Belton alone. If the case had gone on, it would have cost millions more.
One of those suing Belton—the final one—was Roman Abramovich, the multi-billionaire owner of Chelsea football club. Abramovich claimed that Belton’s book alleged that he had a corrupt relationship with the Russian President and was making payments into Kremlin slush funds. An identical suit was also filed in an Australian court by Abramovich, to effectively double the cost of defending the case and to further intimidate HarperCollins.
It is worth reminding people of Mr Abramovich’s background and the character of the man. We are speaking here of the man who manages President Putin’s private economic affairs, according to the Spanish national intelligence committee. This is a man who was refused a Swiss residency permit, due to suspected involvement in money laundering and contacts with criminal organisations. Abramovich was also deemed a danger to public security and a reputational risk to Switzerland.
Abramovich initially came to the UK on an investor visa. In 2015, the Home Office tightened the rules around those visas, so that applicants could be required to prove the origins of their wealth. In 2018, when his visa was up for renewal, Abramovich withdrew the application. When he bought Chelsea FC, Abramovich was the governor of the Chukotka region of Russia. It was alleged by associates of his that the purchase was done at the behest of the Kremlin. As a result of the purchase, he now has enormous soft power and influence in the UK. I ask the House to come to its own conclusion about whether this man is acting at the behest of the Kremlin or Putin’s Government.
Belton’s case is now settled. Interestingly, there was a huge spin to suggest that Abramovich had won hands down, and he had not, but that is another matter. But for her colleague on the Financial Times, Tom Burgis, the author of “Kleptopia: How Dirty Money is Conquering the World”, his legal battles are just beginning. Burgis is being sued by the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation, a privately owned Kazakh multinational mining company. Since April 2013, ENRC has been under investigation by our Serious Fraud Office for fraud, bribery and corruption. The investigation is one of the longest-running and most complicated cases that the SFO has on its books. This case, and its reporting, has prompted a wave of legal proceedings by ENRC in the United States and the UK against journalists, lawyers and Serious Fraud Office investigators.
In May 2015, two former employees of ENRC turned up dead on the same day in a Missouri hotel. They were due to be witnesses in the SFO case. The cause of their death was recorded as malaria, but the chances of two people dying from malaria on the same day and at the same time, broadly—within hours of each other—is vanishingly small. The next year, a geologist associated with the company was found dead in the back of a burned-out Audi in Johannesburg. Burgis outlined these facts in his book, but he is now facing the wrath of ENRC, which alleges that passages in the book are “untrue” and “highly damaging”—the reason? Because ENRC interpreted the reporting of the deaths as Burgis suggesting
“murder to protect its business interests, or alternatively, there are strong grounds to ‘suspect’”
that ENRC had them murdered.
Even given the waiver, I should not comment on the substance of the ongoing legal proceedings, but what I will say is that the FBI takes these allegations seriously enough that it is now investigating the Missouri deaths. Take from that what you will, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Amazingly, when the FT reported the FBI’s action, ENRC then took action against that paper. Are we now to understand that journalists are not allowed to publicly report the deaths of witnesses for fear that someone may deduce that they were murdered by a company like ENRC?
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a fantastically important speech, and I look forward to joining him to talk about these many important subjects. What does he think about those London-based law firms that are so willing to sell intimidatory legal threats as part of their services?
Mr Davis
My hon. Friend alights upon a very important point. It is very clear that some London-based law firms have found an incredibly profitable niche that they are willing to pursue without too much concern about the outcome. I think the professional bodies for those law firms should be looking very hard at them, as should the Government. It is an important point, which I am sure others will develop.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. On the point of the lawyers who are facilitating all this—the army of lawyers doing the dirty work of the Russian Government and of oligarchs and the Governments of other hostile regimes—does he agree that were we to introduce a foreign agents registration Act in this country, lawyers acting on behalf of those people should be included in such a registration process?
Mr Davis
The hon. Gentleman makes an important and persuasive point, but I suspect there are other people in this room at the moment—I am looking to my left here—who have stronger authority on this me. What I am trying to argue today is that this issue requires Government action that will involve a whole series of things from reorganising how civil cases are dealt with, through how we license private investigation to the sort of reporting arrangements for foreign agents that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. This is a whole area that the Government will have to take on in toto.
The assault faced by Burgis, HarperCollins, the Financial Times, the Serious Fraud Office and others has been described by a coalition of organisations as
“a form of legal harassment used by those with deep pockets to silence journalists”.
That same coalition is
“deeply troubled by the chilling effect this wave of legal action has on legitimate investigative and anti-corruption work by journalists, law enforcement officials, and others”.
This is not just about the financial costs; these actions take an emotional toll on those who are targeted.
Sometimes it does not stop there. Lawfare is often buttressed by other methods of harassment and intimidation. John Gibson, a former Serious Fraud Office case controller, was sued by ENRC for allegedly leaking information to Tom Burgis, the journalist. Why did ENRC suspect that? In cross-examination, ENRC’s lawyer described in detail a meeting between Burgis and Gibson—a meeting that both had gone to extreme lengths to keep secret. It was organised over an encrypted messaging service and held in an underground car park with no telephone signal. So the only explanation for how ENRC’s lawyer had details of this clandestine meeting would be if Burgis, Gibson or both were being actively watched.
This is a private company putting a journalist under aggressive surveillance. It is a private company putting a Serious Fraud Office employee under aggressive surveillance. It is a private company, in essence attempting to undermine the freedom of the press and frustrate the legitimate workings of the state. It is immoral, it is intimidating and it is unethical. Frankly, the entire industry needs to be looked at, and powers need to be put in place to tame the wild west of private intelligence work.
It is not just journalists who are targets for this kind of bullying, and it does not just involve international billionaires. Our former colleague Charlotte Leslie, the director of the Conservative Middle East Council, is facing legal challenges from the multi-millionaire Mohamed Amersi. The court documents outline how Mr Amersi tried to pressurise his way to becoming the chair of the Conservative Middle East Council. It has been suggested that that was because he saw it as a route to a knighthood or other honour, and that Ms Leslie rejects his attempts. In response, he tried to form his own group, the Conservative Friends of the Middle East and North Africa. Ms Leslie then compiled a due diligence note on his background, and it was sent to Conservative headquarters by Sir Nicholas Soames. That memo outlined details about Amersi’s past, his associates and his dealings with Russia. As far as I can see, it was compiled from open source research.
Mr Amersi got hold of this memo. In response, he had his lawyers send demanding letters to both Soames and Leslie. He claimed that the memorandum was defamatory and inaccurate. However, despite the issue rumbling on for over a year, he filed his defamation case only last month. In the meantime, he used data law to take Ms Leslie to court. This is a growing tactic for those using SLAPPs to silence their critics. In November, Ms Leslie appeared in the Royal Courts of Justice. The contention was that she had not responded properly to a data subject access request from Amersi. Usually, the Information Commissioner deals with such disagreements, but when a rich man wants to silence and destroy someone, they go to the courts. The claim was dismissed and Charlotte and CMEC were awarded 65% of the costs, but Amersi is bringing the claim back and a four-day trial has been scheduled for the spring, further ramping up enormous costs.
So, who is Mohamed Amersi? On his website, he describes himself as
“driven by a desire to create a world that’s better for everybody”.
Let’s test that against public domain facts, shall we? In 2005, he made £4 million helping a Luxembourg company to buy a Russian telecoms business. The following year, a Swiss judge concluded that that company was secretly owned by a top crony of Vladimir Putin, Leonid Reiman. In 2006, Amersi was accused in a separate lawsuit of trying to extort a $2 billion payment, not on behalf of himself but on behalf of a Russian oligarch.
Four years later, in 2010, Amersi advised on a transaction in Uzbekistan that was found to be a $220 million bribe to the daughter of the country’s brutal dictator. When he was embroiled in a dispute in the early 1990s, a UK High Court judge described his conduct as “lamentable” and his evidence as “unreliable”, “unconvincing” and “unsatisfactory”.
All that information is available in public court records. I cannot make an authoritative judgment on the matter, so I will leave it to the House to decide for itself whether that served to create a world “better for everybody”. In the latest instance, Amersi has used his wealth and influence to try to bully Charlotte Leslie into silence.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
As a former colleague of Charlotte Leslie, I think she has been treated appallingly just for doing her job efficiently and in good faith. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has exposed the appalling tactics that have been used against her.
Is there no way to stop repeated legal actions, or the threats of legal actions, being brought? It is the attrition effect of clearly vexatious complaints that intimidates people into submission or silence or, effectively, bankruptcy. Surely there should be some measure that says, “You have one shot at it, at best, and then there is no further recourse to the courts or such legal action.” Would that be a way to stop the appalling actions that my right hon. Friend has been describing?
Mr Davis
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The way that it happens is that there are legal firms that now specialise in making that sort of intimidating tactic work, and it is based on multiple different laws—as I said earlier, on everything from defamation to data protection and privacy. Therefore, we have to find a way to govern how the courts work to ensure that exactly what he says does not happen and that there are not multiple attempts. After all, someone can be charged only once for a crime, so why can someone be sued multiple times for another sort of misbehaviour?
It is not only Amersi who is engaged in bullying and egregious behaviour, and it is not just law. For instance, Mr Carl Hunter was in contact by phone with Ms Leslie to attempt to informally broker peace between her and Mr Amersi and to urge her to apologise. He told her:
“You need to consider your position—being able to walk the dog at night, being able to sleep well at night.”
He said that she was looking at a “world of pain” on it. Those are clear and unacceptable threats, of which recordings are available, made in an attempt to intimidate. Those recordings contain other rather sinister comments as well.
Bob Seely
To reinforce a point that other hon. Members will probably make, although the lawyers—the Carter-Rucks and the Mishcon de Reyas—will say, “Everything that we do is legal,” this is part of a really corrupt and intimidatory practice that veers well into the criminal. Even if the lawyers are obeying the law, other parts of these sorts of campaigns are, frankly, purely criminal.
Mr Davis
I take my hon. Friend’s point. He will understand that I am picking my way carefully through my speech, given Mr Speaker’s ruling, so as not to trip into pre-empting the case. I am trying to present facts to the House so it can make its own judgment.
Charlotte Leslie has tried to settle the issue. After that intimidatory approach, she agreed to apologise to Mr Amersi and he rejected it. He is used to getting his way. He justified the use of money to get access to members of the royal family as “access capitalism”—that is his phrase. He has taken the same approach in this case. He throws money at a problem in an attempt to make it go away.
While Ms Leslie has been subject to legal harassment for a year, Sir Nicholas Soames has avoided the brunt of Amersi’s attack. Why? This is not a comment against Sir Nicholas, who is a very good man, but in Amersi’s own words—his rather odd English—it is because of his “grandioseness”. Charlotte, on the other hand, is not seen as grand and is therefore fair game. There is a simple non-legal word for that, which is bullying. That is what we are seeing.
So what do we need to do about SLAPPs? Members of this House will have many more ideas than me, and many of them are much more skilled and knowledgeable than me in these areas, but the clear fact is that there needs to be balance. Dealing with SLAPPs is an issue of balance. It is not wrong to sue journalists—sometimes they make serious mistakes or behave maliciously—but billionaires and multimillionaires should not be able to use the law to shut down legitimate criticism. Even if someone defends their case successfully, in this day and age they face material costs so huge that they will further deter others from following a story, and they can even destroy lives. Just to go off on a tangent, Charlotte Leslie, if she has to meet the costs of all of this, will probably have to sell her home and lose all her savings, and that is what an ordinary person faces in this context.
In the United States, 31 states have passed anti-SLAPP laws offering varying degrees of protection—remember that the US already has the first amendment—and in some cases allowing journalists and media organisations to file motions to dismiss such suits at an early stage on the grounds that the case involves protected speech on a matter of public interest. Such a protection does not exist in the UK, enabling the process to be dragged out at great expense to both parties. That is fine for those with deep pockets, but for an ordinary person it is immensely damaging financially and emotionally. It destroys the entire concept of equality under the law.
Other countries are already addressing this issue, and as they do, the problem for London will only grow as more and more ultra-wealthy individuals come here to exercise lawfare. If London is to remain the envy of the legal world, then we need to get a grip on the problem and stop this rampant abuse of our system. If we do not, we will continue to face these kinds of attacks on the freedom of our press—the foundation of our state—and we will leave our people subject to grotesque injustice in the face of this outrageous lawfare.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
It is a real privilege and an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) to help open this debate and to follow on from his arguments.
“Follow the money” is the oldest and wisest advice given to journalists who are pursuing the corrupt, shining lights where they need to be shone and hunting the truth, yet this dictum, which has served us so well since Watergate, is now being smothered, suffocated and strangled in courts by allies, associates and friends of President Putin, who is pursuing a hybrid war against the west and against us. That is the context for the debate that we are holding this afternoon.
Many of us in this House have been warning for some years that it is time for this country to wake up to this new threat. Hybrid war is a novel kind of conflict. Once upon a time, wars were fought on land, in the air and at sea, but no more. Hybrid war is a battle for minds as much as it is for land—for influence and narrative, not simply territory. That means it extends the battlefront to space, to cyber-space and, now, to law space. It is fought with tweets as well as tanks, and now it is being fought with writs as one more weapon in the armoury. Of course, the reason for this is simple: what totalitarians, autocrats and kleptocrats fear most is the truth, so what they are seeking to do is to murder the truth, and we are letting them do it in English courts.
Stephen Kinnock
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. On the point of cyber and hacking, is he aware of cases in which these Russian-backed interests are hacking people’s private data, leaking it and then suing them for libel, and does he agree that that is an utterly absurd and unacceptable position to be in?
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come on that in a moment.
The truth is that the truth is under attack by oligarchs with Russian connections because they are seeking to disguise the origin of their fortunes, their methods of business and, of course, their networks of friends. The result is that the frontline of this hybrid war now stetches from the streets of Donbass and Crimea and the troll farms of St Petersburg to the law courts of Britain—our courts, in England, here in London.
It was the Intelligence and Security Committee—whose distinguished Chair, theright hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), is present—that made clear on, I believe, page 22 of its landmark report on Russia that the interests of Russian business are now so closely entwined with the interests of the Russian state that it is impossible to unravel them. It is these honourable folk who are now using English courts as their preferred location for the business of truth silencing. According to a survey of 63 journalistsin 41 countries, more cases were brought against journalists in the UK than in America and Europe combined.As theright hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said, the United States and Europe are now moving to shut this down, but we are not. That is why we are now becoming the global capital of the lawfare industry.
There are now so many cases that today we can reveal—it was evident in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech—what might be described as the oligarch’s playbook. Step one is to target the individual, not the organisation, because the individual is most vulnerable, and take aim at the slightest error. Arron Banks did not go for The Guardian or The Observer; he went for Carole Cadwalladr, and took aim at a single sentence in her TED talk. As we have heard, ENRC went after Tom Burgis personally after he flagged up the information that witnesses to its crimes were being murdered. Paul Radu, who happens to be Romanian, is being pursued in English courts by corrupt Azerbaijani politicians. We have to ask: why are powerful interests from far away suing journalists who are not English and do not write for English titles? Why are they being sued in English courts? Surely that must tell us that something in our country is going badly wrong.
Step two is to maximise intimidation, using covert surveillance if necessary. As we have heard, investigators and journalists are now being inundated with data subject access requests so that people who are up to no good can smoke out what they are up to. ENRC agents surveilled Tom Burgis, who was in a meeting that had been arranged on an encrypting messaging app; how on earth did it know about that? The Financial Times journalist Dan McCrum, who helped to break the Wirecard story, was subject to online abuse, hacking, electronic eavesdropping and physical surveillance. These people know no boundaries. They are completely out of control.
At one stage, I have been told, Elizabeth Denham, who was the Information Commissioner at the height of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, was warned by counter-terrorism officers that MI5 had evidence that she was under active intrusive surveillance ordered by Mr Arron Banks, so her office had to be swept. Others have told us about the “hack and leak” technique whereby systems are hacked into, and information is then leaked to serve as a trigger for defamation proceedings.
Step three is then to file the most ludicrously exaggerated claims. Mr Abramovich’s attack on Catherine Belton took completely out of context what Ms Belton had actually written. We know that Tom Burgis has been attacked because he is alleged to have said that a corporate entity had ordered the murders. There are extraordinary exaggerations and twisting of what has actually been written.
Step four is to co-ordinate the claims with others to maximise intimidation and, indeed, legal costs. Catherine Belton was subject to an onslaught first from the Alpha group, then from Abramovich, then from Mikhail Fridman, then from Shalva Chigirinsky, then from Pyotr Aven, and then from Rosneft—and we are being invited to believe that somehow this was unco-ordinated. They must think we are complete idiots.
Step five, as we have heard, is to file claims in multiple jurisdictions—an example is Mr Abramovich’s suit against HarperCollins in Australia—to maximise the cost for journalists, writers and their publishers. The impact is the creation of legal bills that are so big that they chill and kill the truth. Catherine Belton’s case cost well over £1.5 million, and it would have cost millions more if it had gone any further. Carole Cadwalladr’s case is costing hundreds of thousands of pounds. Major Karpov’s case against Bill Browder left Mr Browder with a bill of £600,000, which the plaintiff has not paid because when he lost his case, lo and behold, he subsequently disappeared.
Democracy’s watchdogs are having their tongues cut out and our writers are having their writing fingers broken. The result is that suspicion multiplies and the risk of corruption grows. I am so glad that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden has put before the House details of Mr Mohamed Amersi, which is a case in point. On Monday I shared intelligence with the House from sources inside the Kremlin and the Russian Government, including information about one of Mr Amersi’s business partners, a man called Leonard Bogdan, who sources tell me has “a definite FSB background.” I now learn that Mr Bogdan’s daughter works for the Conservative party’s central office and—surprise, surprise—was briefly secretary of Conservative Friends of the Middle East and North Africa.
We then learned, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that Mr Amersi’s associate, friend, colleague and lunching partner, Carl Hunter, threatened a former Member of Parliament, Charlotte Leslie, that without an apology to Mr Amersi the case had “all possibility of going further to a really gruesome stage.” What on earth is going on in this country when people like this are able to issue threats to anyone, never mind former Members of this House? And still Mr Amersi thinks he can go to a four-day trial and take Ms Leslie to court.
We still do not know the origin of Mr Banks’s donations to Leave.EU. When the Electoral Commission warned about the poor National Crime Agency investigation, Mr Banks sued the Electoral Commission and forced it to take down a statement about his lies. We have heard from regulators who fear judicial review because a subject access request might come in from representatives of organised crime groups that are seeking banking licences. This is complete madness. Perhaps there are perfectly innocent explanations for all this, and maybe I have too suspicious a mind, but I would like to know the truth. I want newspapers and investigators to be able to hunt down the truth and, where necessary, publish it.
That is why we need action and we need it now. We are still governed by the great European Magna Carta that we wrote in the 1950s, the European convention on human rights. It establishes a positive obligation to safeguard the freedom of a pluralist media and to create a favourable environment for participation in public debate. We are failing to uphold that duty.
It is not simply libel law being abused, as Bill Browder was attacked using cross-border insolvency legislation. We have heard how GDPR is now being misused by oligarchs. I was the shadow Minister on the Public Bill Committee on the Data Protection Act 2018, and I can expressly tell the House that it was not the intention of the previous Parliament for the Act to be used in this malicious way.
The new anti-corruption strategy and the economic crime plan that the Government have to refresh need to include five quick provisions. First, we need what are known as SLAPP-back laws so that a judge can rapidly dismiss a case if it is designated as strategic legal action against public participants. Secondly, we need a public figure defence, as America has, so a person who sues a public figure has a much higher bar to clear and needs to be able to prove actual malice. Thirdly, we need a sanctions regime against vexatious litigants, which could include paying 100% of costs or even punitive costs, to deter the misuse of our courts that we are now seeing. Fourthly, we need a defamation defence fund on the lines proposed by President Biden, and I humbly suggest that it should be funded by a windfall tax on the law firms making millions from the misuse of our courts.
Time and again, we have heard in our research about the behaviour of Hugh Tomlinson, Geraldine Proudler, Carter-Ruck, Mishcon de Reya, Schillings, CMS and Olswang, and it is now time for the regulatory body to pass new rules to ensure these firms follow a good model of litigation principles that ensures rules of good conduct and even liability for clients who refuse to pay their bills when they lose their case, like Major Karpov.
Bob Seely
This is yet another great speech. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that these solicitors’ bodies and barristers’ bodies should be more concerned about the very questionable ethics and behaviour of individual lawyers and individual law firms? They seem to be able to get away with whatever they want and offer whatever service, however questionable.
Liam Byrne
The hon. Gentleman is right on that. When we welcomed the integrated review and the rhetoric of “global Britain”, what none of us intended was that “global Britain” meant London becoming the capital of the global lawfare industry, yet we know about the profits that are being made by some of these firms, which, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden eloquently said, are now carving out a big fat niche for themselves.
In conclusion, once upon a time Mr Churchill warned about an “iron curtain” descending across our continent, from Stettin in the north to Trieste in the south. The challenge for our generation is very different. A kleptosphere is taking shape, stretching from Kaliningrad in the west to Kamchatka in the east. Every day, urgently, incessantly, patiently, friends of Mr Putin are trying to push the frontiers of that kleptosphere into Ukraine, the Balkans, Cyprus, Malta and the Baltics, and, yes, into Britain. It is pushed forward by attacking the weakest brick in our defences, and we in this House must ensure that our courts never become vectors for our country’s opposition. For nearly 1,000 years, our courts have been sanctuaries of justice, but now they are becoming arenas of silence, places in which the truth is killed. It was Václav Havel who said that the greatest defence against totalitarians is to live “in truth”. That is also the greatest defence against kleptocrats. I want to live in truth, which is why I say to the Minister: it is now time for the Government to act.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Sir Robert Neill, let me just remind everybody that the sub judice waiver is not a general waiver; it relates to specific cases. If people wish to seek guidance, the Clerks at the Table will be able to guide them properly so that they do not stray, which I know Sir Robert Neill will not do.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I promise that in my brief remarks I will endeavour not to do so. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for securing this important debate and congratulate him on doing so. This is a significant topic, one with constitutional importance. I wish to confine most of my remarks to the position of the legal system in the UK, bearing in mind that just as living in truth is a great defence against evil, so, in practical terms, is the independence of the judiciary the greatest defence of our constitution. Abuse undoubtedly occurs, and I am grateful to him for highlighting some of the cases. The one case I will refer to is the appalling treatment of our friend and former colleague Charlotte Leslie; this is the worst type of intimidation of a thoroughly good person, as many of us would know, but there are many other such cases. When we deal with that abuse, we have to be wary of not doing so in such a way as to undermine the ability of the courts of this country to act utterly independently. That will sometimes involve the right of an unattractive litigant to seek access to the courts; that is fundamental too. That is probably why it is right that if action has to be taken, this House and Government must do it. We cannot place the judiciary in the invidious position of having to make judgments as to the political acceptability or otherwise of those who might seek to bring a claim before the courts—provided, of course, that there is at least a prima facie legal basis to bring the claim in the first place.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) mentioned some sensible measures that we might take to enable courts to protect themselves. The anti-SLAPP law is worthy of consideration because it could involve an early strike-out mechanism that would speed up the means of dealing with cases without any substantive merit that have clearly been brought for the purposes of intimidation through a war of attrition.
It is useful to know that many lawyers and judges have raised concerns about the matter. Only at the end of last year, there was a very useful conference in which it was considered by the High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom, which is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Neuberger, the former President of the Supreme Court. The panel, of which Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws is also a member, recommended that the Ministry of Justice move towards a consultation on anti-SLAPP laws, perhaps taking up some of the best practice found in the States. We do not have to take up all suggestions—I would have some concerns about the practical impact of the defamation fund suggested by President Biden—but other issues that have been raised are well worthy of consideration.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
My hon. Friend is infinitely more expert than I am in these matters, but the point has been raised very clearly indeed on a couple of occasions that the regulatory bodies dealing with these law firms appear unwilling or unable to take any action. Can he suggest any way in which the law firms themselves can be brought to heel?
Sir Robert Neill
Let us be very clear: there are very significant regulations relating to the conduct of law firms in the United Kingdom. There are two separate regulatory regimes. Very properly, there are much greater checks in place on money laundering and source of funds for the solicitors profession, which handles client money, than for the Bar, which does not; it acts on the instructions that come via its professional client, the solicitors. That distinction is important, and I will digress briefly to deal with it.
We have to bear in mind that one of the key strengths of the independent Bar in England and Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland is that barristers operate on the cab rank rule: if they hold themselves out as having expertise in a particular field of law and are available to take on a case when a proper fee is offered, they are professionally obliged to do so, regardless of their opinion of the client. That is utterly fundamental. Barristers do not and should not have the luxury of making moral choices about the people for whom they act; that is the essence of independence and objectivity at the Bar.
Bob Seely
Is my hon. Friend saying—he may well be right; I make no assertions—that it is a complete coincidence that Hugh Tomlinson keeps taking these cases?
Sir Robert Neill
If Mr Tomlinson practises in that field, it is open to him to take those cases—I have to say that bluntly to my hon. Friend. It would be a very dangerous thing if Parliament ever sought to interfere with the rights of any lawyer in respect of which clients they do or not take on. That would be a very dangerous and slippery slope; actually, it would go in the direction of the jurisdictions that we are rightly criticising in this debate.
Sir Roger Gale
I am sorry to press my hon. Friend on the point, but is there also a requirement on the law firm—the practice or the man—to establish the source of the funding that is being used to persecute people?
Sir Robert Neill
Absolutely. The regulations dealing with the solicitors profession have very considerable requirements to track the source of funds. They apply from the basic level of a conveyancing transaction, all the way up to funding for the most complex litigation. We should not mischaracterise the position by saying that there is a high level of cynicism in the legal profession; there is not, and I do not believe that there is a failure of regulation either.
Mr David Davis
As has already been said, my hon. Friend is infinitely more expert in these things than most of us. May I bring him back to the matter of Mr Hugh Tomlinson and other firms? The answer to this may be to look very closely at the tactics put together by these firms, which put them in the very profitable commercial niche that I was talking about. If we were to judge that those tactics were unfair and unjust, that would solve the problem of firms or individuals appearing in more and more of these oppressive cases.
Sir Robert Neill
Let us put it this way: Parliament may decide as a matter of policy that certain behaviours are undesirable and should be constrained by law. The courts would faithfully apply any law on the subject that Parliament passed. That is the right way, in my judgment, to deal with this. That relates, too, to the law regulating the professions. For the reasons I gave, we should be very wary of fettering lawyers’ ability to defend unpopular clients, which is not the same as unmeritorious clients. Remember why that is: there are many instances where injustice has been prevented by lawyers taking on an unpopular client and an unpopular cause. That is the point on the other side that we have to weigh in the balance before we go entirely down the path of saying that because we disapprove of someone, we should deny them redress in law.
Liam Byrne
The hon. Gentleman is doing an immense service to the House by bringing his expertise to this debate. I agree that we need to be circumspect, and to empower judges to deal with abuse of courts. Judges know an abuse of court when they see one. In Major Karpov’s case, he was being paid £15,000 to £20,000 a year in Russia, but could somehow afford lawyers who cost £600 an hour. There must be some kind of weakness there, which we need to fix if we are to ensure that lawyers can genuinely understand the source of the money that is paying their bills.
Sir Robert Neill
Obviously, I am not in a position to consider the facts in that case. If people have suggestions, or examples that suggest a failure in the regulatory environment, of course they should bring them to the attention of the regulatory authorities; my experience has been that they take their job very seriously, and I know that the Ministry of Justice is very aware of this matter. Of course, one should never be afraid to look at specific examples to see if anything could be improved; I am very open to that. I would not, however, want to throw out the baby with the bath water in our approach to this issue, and that is why I argue for a balanced approach.
Sir Robert Neill
I will give way to my hon. Friend, and then I will try to make a bit of progress, because I have given way quite a number of times.
Bob Seely
My hon. Friend is making fantastically important points, and we are testing our arguments on him out of respect for his background and experience. Much as we like or dislike individual cases or lawyers, we all agree that lawyers should be independent, but we are talking about systemic failure that allows this corrupting industry to grow. On the point made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), Bill Browder has directly alleged that CMS took instruction from Russian organised crime via middlemen, but nothing much seems to have been done about it, and there does not seem to be huge interest in where the money came from.
Sir Robert Neill
We must always make sure that the regulatory regime is kept up to date and fit for purpose. That applies to a number of the tools we have for dealing with this type of corruption. It also applies to resourcing of the Serious Fraud Office, which has been mentioned. We should make sure that it has the technology and manpower to deal with complex investigations, and that the courts and certain regulatory bodies have the technology to deal with complicated matters; there is no problem with that at all. The key thing that we must do, however, is preserve the independence of the regulatory bodies, and that is best done by our setting a proper legal framework—that is our responsibility—and giving them the tools to do their daily job in an independent fashion. As far as I can see, there is no dispute about that in the Chamber.
It is important, too, that we look at practical measures. I hope that the Ministry of Justice will consider consulting on anti-SLAPP laws that broadly follow the form of those in the United States. That is something that distinguished jurists such as Lord Neuberger think is well worth considering. It would be a sensible and constructive step forward. The High-level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom also suggested that reform of the civil procedure rules could be fairly regularly undertaken. That is something we could ask the judiciary themselves to look at, because they must be master of their own rules, rather than us dictating them.
It has been suggested, for example, that civil procedure rule 24.4 on summary judgment could be adjusted to make it easier to deal with such unmeritorious claims where they are being pursued for abusive reasons, such as deliberately stretching out proceedings to run up the costs. Perhaps greater use of security for costs could also be undertaken. Those are practical things that I have no doubt that the courts would be willing to do and we could ask them to consider. The broader legislative framework of the anti-SLAPP law, as I said before, is down to this House. I, for one, would be open to looking constructively at that. That is the balance that I wanted to get into the equation. How do we ensure the reputation that we have in this country as a jurisdiction of choice for litigation—that exceptional benefit?
Only yesterday, Justice Committee members and I met the Justices of the Supreme Court, across Parliament Square, because we thought it would be useful to start more of a dialogue between the legislature and the Supreme Court on matters of importance. We have there men and women of the highest integrity and intellectual ability. They reminded us of the very high percentage of cases that they deal with, even at the final appellant level, that involve international parties. Of itself, that is not a bad thing and we should not ever allow anyone to think that is ever a bad thing. Generally bona fide commercial organisations or individuals choose to litigate under English law precisely because it is trusted more than that anywhere else, because of the independence and because of the rigour. How do we preserve that and at the same time update, where necessary, the tools to prevent abuse of the system? That is the trick that we have to pull off. I am sure, with good will, that that can be done.
The final thing I was going to say in this context was referred to by other speakers in the debate: the importance of our continued engagement in the international sphere on this. I, for one, in particular stress the absolute importance of our continuing within our obligations to the Council of Europe and the convention on human rights. I regard that as an absolute red letter in our constitutional and legal position and a massive benefit to the UK.
I had the honour to serve in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for a number of years, before I became Chairman of the Justice Committee, and in that role I represented the Parliamentary Assembly on GRECO, the Group of States against Corruption, on which the Ministry of Justice has officials sitting on a permanent basis. Admirable work is done there, including, interestingly, by some of the emerging democracies in eastern and central Europe, which recognise the need to clean up their own systems and reputations. That is important.
Liam Byrne
The hon. Gentleman is being incredibly generous. I underline that the Ministry of Justice is out for consultation on reform of the Human Rights Act 1998, which helps to enshrine the ECHR. Does he agree that it is absolutely essential that there is no backsliding on our obligations to preserve a pluralist media environment with vigorous public debate and the cherishing of free speech?
Sir Robert Neill
Protection of the media and the right to free speech are fundamental to our convention obligations. We must never do anything that resiles from those. There is a separate debate about the mechanisms with which we in our domestic courts enforce the convention obligations, but our commitment to the convention itself must be absolutely crystal clear and so, too, must be our commitment to the institutions put in place to assist, on a co-operative basis, with those matters. I referred to GRECO, which does excellent work, as does—particularly in terms of dirty money, which is without doubt a real problem—Moneyval, the Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism. They are not the catchiest of acronyms, but they do valuable work.
We could also look at what we do on the issue of cross-border insolvency. That is not one that is easy to fix because, again, the cross-border insolvency regime stems from a number of international agreements that we have entered into, which in many respects bring considerable commercial value to British companies and individuals. However, there is no harm in looking at that, if it is an issue where there is potential abuse.
This has been referred to in discussions I have had with practitioners and judges. As well as the cross-border insolvency issue—we need to protect from abuse—we need to look at potential loopholes in the data protection legislation. Again, that is for us to do because, we, as a House, passed that legislation. If time has shown that there are areas of defect that need to be addressed, then, absolutely right, we should move to address that. Again, if we address that, I have absolute confidence that the judiciary will enforce the policy decision that we take in this place under our constitutional rule. They will play their constitutional part to enforce it.
This is an immensely important debate and I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden for securing it. Our international reputation is critical. The reputation of our judiciary is critical. I get the sense that no one for one second is calling that into doubt, but we have to find a sensible, balanced and proportionate means of making sure that, while we uphold that and the judiciary’s fundamental independence, we do so in a way that prevents abuse. That is an objective that certainly warrants further debate and consideration. I hope the Minister will take that on board as we go forward.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) for securing this important debate.
Litigations against public participation are abusive lawsuits that are pursued with the purpose of shutting down acts of public participation and, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, they can come in many guises, covering many different areas of the law.
The House will be aware that I was completely cleared and vindicated in Snaresbrook Crown Court last year after what I and many in my constituency and around the UK viewed to have been vexatious litigation pursued with the purpose of shutting down my public participation as a democratically elected socialist Member of Parliament and as a survivor of domestic abuse. To put it very simply, I do not believe that I would have had to endure such an ordeal if I had not stood up against domestic abuse, harassment and intimidation and if I had not had the audacity to put myself forward as a socialist to represent the area in which I have lived all my life.
The use of courts to try to pull down political opponents is fundamentally undemocratic and against the public good. First, my case raised questions about the independence of local bureaucrats and whether they can be trusted to deal with imprisonable offences, because, of course, the legal action pursued against me was not taken by the Crown Prosecution Service, but brought by my local council, spending more than £90,000 of public taxpayers’ money. Nobody, absolutely nobody, involved in pursuing this trial seems to have found it remotely odd that the complaint was made by my ex-husband’s brother-in-law, submitted after I was selected to be Labour’s parliamentary candidate and coincided with the day when the nomination papers had to be formally submitted; or that the people who were opposed to me being selected as the candidate, including my ex-husband, were in positions of political oversight. Surely, given such conflicts of interest, at the very least the case should have been referred to the CPS.
Secondly, my case demonstrated problems with the way the legal system deals with domestic abuse and, indeed, the increasing prevalence of cases such as mine where the legal action taken against me was an extension of this abuse and the ongoing intimidation and harassment subsequent to my escaping a very bad situation, which continues.
I found it bizarre that such a spurious case could be pursued against me when I had been told that too much time had passed regarding the abuse that I had suffered, despite the period in question being the same. Indeed, the local authority was made aware of the abuse from day one and that was never challenged by the prosecution during the trial. A list of agreed facts was read out at the trial, including medical records and police records. Perversely, the domestic abuse was so accepted that, in cross-examination, it was used against me in order to suggest a motive for the alleged crimes. My ex-husband, also a sitting councillor, was tellingly not called to give evidence by the prosecution. Throughout, the message that came across again and again was that my being a survivor of domestic abuse had no bearing on how this investigation was being conducted. But how can that be? How many other women is this happening to?
I had to be aggressively cross-examined and humiliated in front of the world, with political opponents and my ex-husband’s brother-in-law sitting in the public gallery, about issues of such personal pain and trauma. The case felt as though it was about destroying me, and at times it very nearly did. The complaint was leaked to the media even before I was made aware of it, and there appeared to be a regular source of information flowing to keep the media updated. To be clear, when I won my selection, I was a divorced 29-year-old of modest means. I did not own anything, not even a car, and had been struggling for years to rebuild my life. Suddenly, I had a target on my back for the far right to throw all their bile and hatred at. However, the media did not let truth and decency get in the way of a good story and the opportunity to bring down a socialist feminist Muslim woman who would go on to become the first hijab-wearing MP in this House. Why is it the case that almost anything is allowed to be written and said about me, fuelling Islamophobic abuse and death threats over social media and leading to the judge in my case to issue warnings for my protection?
I want to make an important point about the legal system and access to it. I grew up in the reality of the world out there. I did not know how, and did not have the means or connections, to pursue cases against various outlets. Defamation is an area of law that is rarely accessible to working-class people. It is important for the purposes of this debate for us to have that in mind. Equally, while I agree that media freedom is paramount, media accountability still needs to be addressed more fundamentally. I am not interested in defending elites from justified criticism or in preventing the public from scrutinising those who represent them, including myself. However, I am interested in defending the fundamental structures of political freedom and democracy. In that sense, the media are also in positions of power and leadership in public life, and as such should have regard to how their tone is likely to shape public debate.
However, in my case, so-called scrutiny was not even well researched, well written or accurate. It was derogatory and dehumanising. I always wonder whether the outlets publishing that stuff ever thought about what they were doing to my life, the risk that their actions were placing me under or what my case meant for survivors of domestic abuse and Muslims across the country. Do they ever consider what their intimidation—based on prejudice or hate, which disproportionately negatively impacts women, ethnic minorities, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and other candidates from minority groups—does to people’s mental health and wellbeing? Clearly, my ex-husband and my political opponents thought I would just submit and be intimidated into going away and hiding, but via the solidarity of local people and Labour party members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) in particular, I knew that I could not let that happen to me. I found the strength to survive, not least because I felt a duty to socialists and women everywhere to defend myself and pursue justice.
People might think that being vindicated is the end of it, but the smears continue and my reputation has been damaged. More importantly, claims of defamation and libel were being fired at me and people supporting me. I could not believe it at first—it seemed so ludicrous. I remember how heartbroken I was, when I was finally able to tell my story after the trial, that the media felt it necessary to uncritically print a disclaimer from my ex-husband. I felt that they were highlighting it as his warning to me.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. I was not aware of all the details of what she has been through. Obviously, I do not share her politics, but I commend her for speaking about domestic abuse in the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths), my personal friend, did recently. The more women who do that and share their stories in this place, the better it is for women across the country.
Apsana Begum
I thank the hon. Member for his strong point. I followed very closely the case he mentions of his colleague, the hon. Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths). She is incredibly brave to come forward.
This experience is not unique to me. We know that powerful men use their power and the law to silence women. Southall Black Sisters says it almost had to withdraw from a 2017 documentary on domestic violence because of the insistence that the husbands of the unnamed women alleging abuse and abandonment be given the right to reply in ways that negated the women’s accounts of abuse and exposed them to risk of reprisals, and we know of a series of libel cases where wealthy men have sought to protect their reputations from women who accused them of abuse. Under the Defamation Act 2013 the defendant in libel cases can argue a public interest defence, but this is not available to survivors. I never wanted any of this; I was forced into a situation where I had to speak out and now I feel an obligation to continue to do so because this must never happen again. What does what happened to me say to survivors of domestic abuse when we know how difficult it is to come forward?
I believe in democracy, which means that people from all walks of life and backgrounds can put themselves forward to be considered in democratic processes. This is a question of public good. The increasing prevalence of intimidation of parliamentary candidates and others in public life should concern everyone who cares about our democracy. This is a question of public good. It is important to be clear: lobbying, campaigning, disagreeing and opposing representatives is not what I am talking about. Actually, I am talking about the opposite: intimidation is about seeking to use undemocratic and underhand means, often deploying establishment power, to destroy someone’s life. Finally, I believe no one should suffer domestic abuse and anyone in such a situation should be supported in speaking out. This is a question of public good.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I shall be very brief because many of the points I intended to make have been eloquently expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and indeed by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne).
We have come a long way since the late Robert Maxwell sought to persecute Private Eye through his bank account. We are now dealing with a wholly different scale of abuse, and it is saddening to hear the extent to which London has now become perhaps the money laundering capital of the world. We know—because we do know—that there is investment in football clubs, property and businesses that is bought by dirty money, and we have a very fair idea of where that dirty money has come from. It comes not only from the Russian Federation but from Azerbaijan, other countries of the former Soviet Union, and countries in the middle east; it is the oligarchy—the kleptosphere as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill said.
Having spent, as others have, some time with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I am in no doubt of the extent of this influence, and, more importantly, of the direct link between those carrying the money bags and Putin’s Kremlin, and that is unacceptable in a civilised society. It is a disgrace that there are law firms in London aiding and abetting those seeking to use the law to suppress the voice of truth, which is why I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) to what extent those in the legal profession take trouble to try to identify the source of the money they are being paid with. I cannot help but feel that the regulatory bodies of the solicitor profession and the Bar need to ask some rather more searching questions.
The convention on human rights is founded on the principles of free speech, a free press and free democracy. If we allow our country to be used as a base to suppress free speech, we will be on a very slippery path. All I want to say to Front Benchers is that the case has been made and the Minister has heard that. We cannot allow this to go on any longer. We have to take action to ensure that anti-SLAPP laws are introduced, that proper controls are exercised to prevent the abuse of our courts and to try to protect those who seek to investigate and then publish the truth.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) on securing this debate. I chose to speak because, like many others, I have growing concern about the use of SLAPPs to silence those who try to shine a light on wrongdoing. As my right hon. Friend said, there is a growing problem of a global kleptocracy in which those with enormous wealth, who may have gained that wealth through dubious means, seek to manipulate our legal system to avoid scrutiny of how they assess their wealth and use it.
Our legal system is respected throughout the world and we are respected for fairness and justice in this country. It is designed to defend our rights and to protect ordinary citizens from being adversely affected by those who would break the law or would seek to take their rights away. It defends our need for freedom of speech and a free, independent press. We in the UK pride ourselves on the sophistication of our democratic system, our legal systems and our free press, so when we see one part of the system being used to diminish another essential part of it, in the form of a free and independent press, we undermine ourselves and the status of our country.
It is important in a democracy such as ours that we can speak truth to power and that we know what is being said and done so that we can form our own opinions. However, the increasing use of strategic lawsuits against public participation—SLAPPs—is undermining that important part of our democracy. It is concerning that one pillar of our democracy, in the form of the legal system, is being used to silence those who would expose wrongdoing.
There are too many disturbing examples of investigative journalists, for example, being silenced by those who are immensely wealthy and who have issues about the way in which they want to be held publicly accountable. They silence individuals through abusive lawsuits. Such lawsuits threaten huge damages and constantly require responses for disclosures, which, in turn, saps the resources of organisations or individuals who are subject to those abusive lawsuits.
This is not just about journalists, whistleblowers, activists, academics and non-governmental organisations. More disturbingly, even our regulatory bodies are not exempt and individuals in those regulatory bodies are targeted in order to silence them. If the organisations and bodies that are set up by the legislation that we pass in this House through our democratic processes are allowed to be undermined by the imposition of SLAPPs on individuals who are carrying out their duty in those organisations, our democracy itself is undermined.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden went into detail about the case of the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation, which raised legal action not just against the Serious Fraud Office that was investigating its activities, but against the individuals who worked there. If individuals feel as though they are exposing themselves to that type of action by carrying out their duty, they are bound to think twice about whether they should do so. As he said earlier, the investigation has gone on since 2013 and has not even reached the courts, but ENRC has issued several SLAPPs to silence and stop that investigation. We cannot allow that to go on.
I listened closely to the speech of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), for whom I have enormous respect. Despite what he said, however, it seems that a significant number of firms in the law profession turn up to defend organisations and individuals who are using SLAPPs. I fully understand the taxi ranking system—I operated it for many years—and I also understand the concept of brooming, which other hon. Members may not, but I bet they have all experienced it. It is the sound of a vehicle’s accelerator being pressed when somebody does not want the job and they broom off. I am sure that it also exists in the legal profession, because a number of individuals seem to turn up in these law suits, which cannot be coincidental. There is clearly something in the legal profession that needs to be examined.
We have to accept that there is a problem and I suggest that two areas need to be examined. First, we must accept that London is becoming a centre for laundering dirty money. The Prime Minister, through one of his spokespeople, has claimed that London has some of the strongest control systems in the world, but that does not explain the criticism of the regulatory regime. The Financial Times said:
“Becoming a money laundering centre is an inevitable risk of being a global financial centre. But UK authorities have for too long been reluctant to adopt or enforce tougher safeguards against dirty money for fear of harming Britain’s image as an easy place to do business.”
I would say that becoming the international centre for dirty money is far more damaging to Britain’s image as a place to do business than exposing the activities that are taking place. More harm will come to Britain as a consequence of doing nothing or delaying action. What does that say about post-Brexit global Britain? Surely part of making Brexit work must be setting the highest standards here in Britain. After all, we have had that reputation for many generations and we should defend it even more vigorously now that we are global Britain on our own after Brexit. We have to act.
I do not want to demand that SLAPPs are introduced that might end up defending huge media corporations that took away or abused the freedoms of individuals through the hacking scandal. To create a system that would contain a loophole for those organisations would be a huge mistake, but neither do we want to enable our legal and financial systems to be abused by criminals who want to buy influence through political donations and silence those who would expose their illegal activities through the use of such abusive legal actions. The Government need to review the issue of SLAPPs and think about regulating in that area without delay. We should also take action to protect individuals who work for agencies that should be investigating such cases—particularly those who may be threatened with legal action.
I wanted to contribute to this debate to demonstrate to the Government the most important thing of all: the growing concern about the use and abuse of SLAPPs by extremely wealthy and powerful people who may have obtained their wealth by dubious means. That voice is growing and the time for action is now.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for his speech; I agree with many of his points. Normally, when people agree on stuff across the House, a bit of virtue signalling may be going on—but in this case, agreement shows serious concern about a really serious issue. I thank both the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for securing this debate; for many of us, it will be one of the most important that we have spoken in.
The abuse of UK courts by organised crime, oligarchs and authoritarian states and their wretched proxies is, I believe, a significant threat when it comes to the corruption of the UK legal system, to freedom of speech and, as the hon. Member for Eltham was saying, to the conduct of due diligence against potentially corrupt actors who would threaten the health of our institutions.
I agree wholeheartedly with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) was saying—that nobody here is questioning the independence of UK courts and nobody is saying that we do not want that independence to continue. It is also true that London is a very important financial and legal centre, and long may that continue—it brings a great deal of money, wealth and employment into London and the UK—but I hope the Minister will understand that bad money drives out good and bad law will do the same. If we allow the cancer of the selling of intimidation services by high-end legal firms, it will not do us any good in the long run, just as in the long run letting mafias launder money would also be bad for us.
Let me be clear. Although these tactics are sold by law firms to many different actors, including organised crime and corrupt corporations, I think they are very much part, as some Members have said, of the Russian state playbook and Russian hybrid war tactics: the tools of non-military conflict in the west against the west. I will argue for significant reform of this corrupting cottage industry, which enriches the few at the expense of the whole. We need to bring in anti-SLAPP legislation, and we need to go after those lawyers—dare I call them slappers—who use such tactics. We need anti-slapper legislation. We also need a much more robust public Act of defence. The United States has one and we have to bring one in here as well.
Finally, I will make the case that we need a foreign lobbying law—or foreign agent registration Act, as some call it. In that way, the law firms that sell services such as reputation management, and related industries such as commercial spying and dirt digging on people, have to be clear about their business models. When they sell those services to overseas entities such as the major and questionable corporations that are Mr Putin’s proxies, they need to give us that information and put it in the public domain, so that the foreign lobbying law can help us identify who works for foreign actors and what they are doing.
We have discussed the various definitions of lawfare so I will not go into that, but there appear to be two important elements that I would like to address specifically. The first is when the law is used to intimidate, wear down and financially destroy journalists and campaigners, and the second, as the hon. Member for Eltham said, is when the law is used to intimidate organisations into failing to conduct due diligence. There is a massive potential issue if we allow bad actors into our energy, food or telecommunications markets.
From 1990 to 1994, I lived in the Soviet Union and in post-Soviet states, and in my academic work have studied as hard as I can types of Russian hybrid war. Let me give a little bit of background. In Russia, the ultimate outcome for a journalist who crosses the rich and powerful and cannot be silenced is death. They are murdered—and nearly two dozen have been murdered under Mr Putin’s leadership of the country. In this country, the murder of UK officials and journalists is not yet part of the oligarch organised crime playbook, although it is in some EU countries, so it is a danger. Instead, other methods are used, two of which are, as we have heard today, the use of libel law and the use of data protection law to intimidate and destroy financially. Reporters, campaigners and activists in our state are threatened not with physical destruction but with financial destruction.
The kompromat corruption industry has sadly been exported to our country from Moscow and St Petersburg. As well as journalists, publishers are intimidated into silence. I congratulate massively HarperCollins for fighting its cases. If HarperCollins has to pay out £5 million or £2 million in court costs every time, the message is clear: do not write about Russia, about those close to the Russian leader or about those state oligarchs who hide their dodgy dealings in plain sight. For the UK and the wider world, the result is that, as many of us have said, freedom of speech has been stifled and journalistic investigations remain unlaunched.
Apsana Begum
Does the hon. Member agree that if the Government are to tackle the type of Russian interference that he has been giving examples of, we must contend equally with the actions and activities of the US Government? Does he appreciate that the case of Julian Assange is relevant? It has been reported that the US had plans to assassinate him on British soil, and at this moment he languishes in prison.
Bob Seely
I am not quite sure of the case that the hon. Lady talks about but the principle is clear: SLAPP legislation applies not just to one country, one industry or one person; it is there to prevent the use of lawsuits against public participation and is in favour of good journalism, good campaigning and good activism. As the hon. Member for Eltham said, SLAPP legislation would not support rich companies that hide their hacking activities—that would not be purposeful—and would prevent bad actors from trying to prevent important information from coming out.
In recent years, several high-profile examples have exposed slightly different tactics in each case, including those of Catherine Belton and HarperCollins, Tom Burgis, Chris Steele, Bill Browder and former Member of Parliament Charlotte Leslie. I thank them all for fighting their battles. Allegedly, the firms that offer and sell—dare I say it?—legal intimidation services to the corrupt, to organised crime or to the Russian state or its proxies include, so we are told, some of the many names that have been mentioned thus far: CMS, Mishcon de Reya, Skadden, Carter-Ruck, Schillings and Harbottle & Lewis, which services Mr Abramovich’s needs.
What do the tactics look like? The Carter-Ruck strategy against Charlotte Leslie appears to be to ratchet up exorbitant costs in the hope of achieving a technical victory on data law and then inflicting the costs on Charlotte and her team in the hope of bankrupting her and her organisation. Last summer, in one week alone, she received 12 letters. Carter-Ruck then threatened other of her directors, despite the fact that they have not taken part in any way in any of the relevant activity.
As we have heard, Catherine Belton and HarperCollins were hit by multiple suits from oligarchs close to President Putin.
In Bill Browder’s well-known case, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill said, a relatively lowly official in the Russian Interior Ministry, who was allegedly part of a campaign to steal tens of millions of dollars and linked to the murder of Sergei Magnitsky, hired Olswang, which is now part of CMS, to go after Bill Browder via a bogus bankruptcy claim. If the internet is correct, the lawyer in question, Geraldine Proudler, used to serve on the Scott Trust, which oversees The Guardian, and apparently now serves on the Guardian Foundation board. I will come back to that, because I have questions for the editor of The Guardian, but I do not support any side that takes questionable funding, whether they are political parties—mine or others—or lawyers. This is not about score settling; I am glad when The Guardian has pointed out where we are not living up to those standards, if indeed that is the case.
With Tom Burgis, we have heard about the Kazakh mining company ENRC issuing 18 legal proceedings in the UK and US against lawyers, investigators and—seriously—the Serious Fraud Office. When the journalist Dan McCrum was being investigated and chased, all those people came out of London. Potentially the most important case in some ways is Daphne Galizia, the murdered Maltese journalist, who was facing 47 lawsuits at the time of her murder. According to her sons, Mishcon de Reya
“sought to cripple her financially with libel action in the UK courts”.
They also said:
“The campaign for justice in our mother’s case cannot be disentangled from the abuse that she suffered at the hands of Mishcon de Reya’s lawyers. The firm sought to cripple her financially with libel action in UK courts, on the instruction of...Henley & Partners. Had our mother not been murdered, they would have succeeded.”
They added that the firm
“has consistently threatened and harassed not just our mother, but countless other journalists worldwide”.
Effectively she was about to be financially destroyed before she was, by others, physically destroyed, but the principle was the same: she was to be silenced at all costs.
We look at the websites of all these big fancy posh firms that apparently charge double or triple rates for doing this sort of work, and one would think butter would not melt in their mouths. I am sure they do pro bono work. This sort of work, offering these sorts of services to some of the most unsavoury human beings and organisations on the planet, is deeply immoral and is deeply corrupting to those otherwise upstanding firms, which should be doing more to protect and not corrupt our legal system. What is being offered is a cottage industry of lawfare—legalised intimidation by some of the most deeply unpleasant individuals and organisations on the planet. These companies are going out trawling for business because it is so well paid. The lawyers who do this sort of work should, to put it bluntly, be deeply ashamed of what they do, because they destroy the integrity of the UK legal system, not uphold it. They charge double or triple, but it is a moral abuse of the law, and they know it.
I want to make one specific point about Geraldine Proudler. I look at her reputation and her lovely website and all that. Bill Browder told me that CMS takes effective instruction via middlemen from Russian organisations and from individuals who have since been sanctioned under Magnitsky. My question to Katharine Viner, who is the editor of The Guardian, is: what on earth is Geraldine Proudler doing on the Guardian Foundation, if she is still a member? What on earth was somebody who was engaged in a case defending a person sanctioned under Magnitsky doing on the Scott Trust? What on earth has the Labour party said about that? Again, I do not defend one side or the other, but there are folks on the Opposition Benches who should be saying to The Guardian, “What on earth are you doing?” I am sure there are other examples that can be thrown our way, and I will not defend anybody.
The board of English PEN, which campaigns to defend writers and freedom of speech, decided in 2018 to retain the libel lawyer Anthony Julius as a trustee. Mr Julius is, I am sure, a fine and upstanding man, but he was also a senior at Mishcon de Reya, the firm that hounded Daphne Galizia to her financial destruction, prior to her physical destruction. I find it unspeakable that these people have got away with this behaviour with absolutely no reputational damage to them at all, yet they are doing things that are actively bad for freedom of speech, any concept of truth and the UK legal system.
I will not go on for too much longer, but I will raise just a couple of other points, if I may. There is a second element here that is critical, which is the intimidation, using data protection laws, of people who are doing due diligence work on our behalf as civil servants. We have seen that ENRC, as part of its wave of lawsuits, has started proceedings against the Serious Fraud Office, or was threatening to do so. I understand that threats of judicial review have also been made in relation to decisions made by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. We are getting into very serious territory when the functioning of Government, as well as the exposing of truth—and, dare I say, concepts such as justice—is being severely hammered and severely damaged.
However, we then move on to another aspect, which is not only the financial destruction, but the reputational destruction facing journalists. I understand that in the Carter-Ruck and Charlotte Leslie case, PR agencies were working hand in glove with the law firms Phil Hall Associates and Kroll, as well as K2 Integrity, a company that helps with “litigation support” and “reputational defence”—also known as digging dirt on other people. I think we are importing too much of the Russian tradition, and it is a specific Russian tradition, of kompromat—the collection of compromising material—which started under the Soviets and is now a huge industry there. Komprometiruyushchiy material, as it is called, is material that is found and then used to blackmail or destroy individuals. In this country, it happens at the same time as racking up extraordinarily large legal bills.
I believe this cottage industry of corrupt activities is actually pretty vile. I think it undermines rather than supports the legal system in this country, and it undermines rather than supports freedom of speech, so what needs to be done? The Government apparently want to restart or to reboot, and I congratulate them on that. I think they need to do so. May I humbly suggest that one of ways that we could be supporting higher standards in public life is by gripping this issue?
The first point is that libel tourism should effectively be outlawed. Secondly, let us look at bringing in a robust public actor defence that raises the bar for the rich and powerful taking on campaigners and journalists. Thirdly, let us have statutory regulation of private investigators and firms that take on the collection of kompromat. Fourthly, let us bring in SLAPP legislation. Fifthly, I again say that we need a foreign lobbying Act as part of the updating of our lobbying laws in this country, which are not fit for purpose. That explains why the UK remains an influence pedlar’s paradise. I have been urging this for four years, and I produced a study of options for the Government about 18 months ago. Corruption scandals, sleaze scandals and lobbying scandals will continue ad infinitum in this country until we grip this issue and do something about it.
I do not want to get in the way of client confidentiality, but I want to know what these firms are doing working for these oligarchs. I want to know how many hours they are billing—I would not mind knowing at what rate as well, to be honest—and what they are doing, as well as which bits of those companies are doing what and why. We need this in the public domain for the good of all of us. We need this cottage industry if not shut down, then severely limited. I will continue to fight for this, as I know others will, because it is very important to the law and to the legal system in this country. Although it is a highly paid industry, it is a corrupting one. It seeks not to strengthen freedom, but to destroy it. It seeks not to defend justice, but to undermine it. It is a growth industry, but in the same way that cancer can be inside a body politic, and it needs to be cut out. I believe that those who work on behalf of foreign states, proxies and organisations betray our values, and the values of our legal system and our nation.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), and to contribute to this excellent debate secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I am very grateful to him for securing it, and I am also very grateful for the briefing that he arranged for Members earlier this week to explore some of the issues behind this.
I want to touch on the really big issues that we have already discussed, but I also want briefly to mention a local low-level lawfare issue in my constituency. Walleys Quarry landfill, which I have referred to many times in this House, is a landfill run by Walleys Quarry Ltd. It is owned by Red Industries, which is controlled by Mr Adam Share, a convicted criminal. He went to jail for bugging the Environment Agency in the 2000s over another landfill, which had remarkable similarities to Walleys Quarry, with the odour overcoming many residents in the local area. Residents were bugged, as were the Environment Agency and the local councils.
Walleys Quarry Ltd is a very litigious company: it has tried to sue me; it has sent legal letters to my council leader, Simon Tagg, and to county Councillor Derrick Huckfield; it tried to secure an injunction against protestors at the last minute the other day, only to be defeated by a woman on Zoom at the High Court on her own—Audrey Young, with no legal representation, defeated that injunction, and I pay tribute to my constituent for that today. This is a slightly lower-level case and I will not go into any further detail for the House today, but I hope that the journalists who want to publish what they know about what has been going on at Walleys Quarry are able to convince their lawyers to stand up to the lawyers employed by Walleys Quarry Ltd.
We have heard today about how our libel laws are being used to silence journalists; how the Data Protection Act and the general data protection regulation are being used to harass investigators; and the abuse of subject access requests to try to obtain special personal data. As the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who is no longer in his place, said in his intervention, when that fails there is the hack and leak approach, where people hack in, publish someone’s data and then sue them for having that data in the first place. Surely that is absolutely ludicrous. We also hear about how judicial review is used to threaten our Government, our Government agencies and our regulators, such as the Serious Fraud Office. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism described how City law firms acting on behalf of those under investigation are “completely outgunning” the SFO in ligation tactics and resources, and raised concerns that an “imbalance of arms” is allowing some oligarchs and powerful corporations to “buy impunity”. That is what is happening to our regulators right now, in our courts, and it is ludicrous that that is permitted.
What do we need? My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) described the independence of the judiciary as one of our essential bulwarks of freedom of speech and liberty, but another is parliamentary privilege. Therefore, first, we need a parliamentary inquiry into all of this. I hope that he will read the Hansard record of my saying this, because such an inquiry would be very valuable. It could look into legal intimidation and into SLAPPs, and it would have the added advantage of giving key figures such as Ms Leslie—I did not serve with her, but I know that most of the Members in this Chamber did—the opportunity to come to this House and say things that are true but that she is worried about saying in any other place because she is frightened of losing her home and of all the other things that were described in the excellent opening speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes an important point on whistleblowers. They get privilege if they give evidence to a parliamentary Committee, but the act of coming to give evidence is not necessarily privileged and they could face legal action for choosing to reveal information. We should look seriously at the idea of extending privilege so that any whistleblower invited to come to a parliamentary Committee will be protected in the act of giving evidence.
Aaron Bell
I thank my hon. Friend, who speaks with experience as a former Chair of a Select Committee. The Procedure Committee, on which I serve, has been looking at what is covered by parliamentary privilege, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) will hear what he has said today and make sure he examines whether that is something we could look at.
Bob Seely
On privilege, occasionally we get the use of it wrong and everyone talks about abusing it, but actually it is fundamentally so important. We need to update it. We need absolute clarity on Committees, on broadcast, and on the relationship between talking about things here and being able to discuss them outside. That urgently needs to be looked at, and if we need new primary legislation, let us get it. If my hon. Friend would keep on looking at this, we would all be very grateful.
Mr David Davis
One thing that came up when we were discussing the strategy of this debate was the question of whether people are using subject access requests on this House. The advice the House authorities give is that we should respond to subject access requests. I told my office, “No, you don’t. I will go to prison before you give away any information on the debating of things in this House.” We need to update those rules, too, so that we are properly protected in future.
Aaron Bell
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I will ensure that all three of those interventions are brought to the attention of the Procedure Committee, because there is a lot to consider here and it is worrying that those tools could be used against Members of Parliament. We should have full protections in all aspects of our job, not just in what we say in this Chamber.
Damian Collins
As a former Chair of the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, I know from experience that Committee Clerks and staff of the House are often sent repeated requests for information about data they hold. Some information is exempt, with respect to the main business of the Committee, but some is not. A huge amount of Clerks’ time and Committee time is taken up with processing those requests.
Aaron Bell
Yes, I quite understand the position that Clerks are in; our staffers can be in the same position. We need protections for everything that goes on in and around this place in the proper exercise of our duties.
What else do we need, as well as the things we can do in Parliament? Fundamentally, we need a change of the legal rulebook. Many of the tactics deployed by unscrupulous claimants are becoming increasingly commonplace, so much so that they constitute a rulebook of tactics and strategies to thwart corruption investigations. They need to be countered by an opposing rulebook, in the ways that have been described: anti-SLAPP laws and a reorientation of the legal profession, private investigation and PR firms to abide by fair standards of litigation and stop pre-trial manoeuvres designed simply to drain resources and intimidate counterparties. Such a reorientation would involve an overhaul of all regulations applicable to the legal profession on the conduct of litigation. As many hon. Members have said, the legal professional bodies need to look hard at what they are permitting to take place under their auspices.
Let us look at anti-SLAPP laws and at what happens elsewhere. In the USA, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) mentioned, there is the public figure defence. Protection of Public Participation Acts were passed in Ontario in 2015 and in the Australian capital territory in 2008. There are off-the-shelf models in other countries that we can adapt to work in the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden began by praising our courts. Of course he was right to do so, but the best infrastructure in the world, and all our best infrastructure, can always be abused—people can drive at 110 mph on our motorways and flush whatever they like into our sewers. We must not let dirty money flush through our courts. We must find a way to prevent the perversion of justice by people who mean us harm.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on securing this fascinating and crucial debate and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who is not currently in his place, on his work to bring it to the House so quickly and persuade others to contribute. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and thank her for sharing her very compelling personal testimony about how she has personally been on the receiving end of many of the bullying tactics that we have heard about this afternoon.
The golden thread running through our discussion is that freedom of expression is one of our core values. People should have the freedom to say what they think, to share information and ideas, and to challenge received wisdom and the behaviour of others. It does not come as an unalloyed freedom, however: we place limits on freedom of expression. People are not entirely free of its consequences, nor should they be. We quite rightly allow recourse through our legal systems to those who have been defamed through people’s use of freedom of expression, so that redress may be sought appropriately.
It is often said quite cynically that the Ritz hotel is open to all, just like the law courts. The truth is that, yes, the law courts are open to all, but it can be ruinously expensive to resort to law, whether for the more routine transactions we make in our lifetime or for going to court to seek a remedy for defamation. It is well beyond most people’s reach even if matters do not get to court.
Thankfully, the Scottish courts have never been a very popular destination for libel tourism. There are doubtless many reasons for that, but I suspect that the lower costs of some—I emphasise “some”—Scottish lawyers and the often lower rewards for successful defamation actions have played a role. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the courts in England, which are increasingly becoming the venue for David and Goliath struggles and actions, or simply the threats of actions, that allow the powerful and the wealthy, whether they are from the UK or elsewhere, to silence, intimidate, cow, browbeat and otherwise silence anyone with something to say, with information to share or with criticisms that run counter to the interests of those wealthy and powerful people. London already has a highly unenviable reputation as the launderette for much of the world’s dirty money and, through its burgeoning public relation and public affairs industry and the comparative accessibility of the courts to those with enough money and financial stamina to make use of them, it is sadly also increasingly becoming a launderette for the sullied reputations of individuals and their corporate entities.
The best courts are the ones that serve the population best in terms of accessibility, fairness of process, transparency, consistency and the justice of the outcome. That is the sort of legal system we should be looking to have, rather than simply having the best legal system that money can buy. London is obviously a massive global centre for many things, including culture, finance, politics, diplomacy, business and commerce, and whenever power, money and influence intersect, it is no surprise that attention is focused on that, with people commenting and reporting on it and discussing it in the various public and private forums. It is important that that power, influence and passage of wealth should be scrutinised and held to account.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) spoke earlier about the actions of the Russian state, particularly in the areas from Ukraine to the Baltics. I would hope that, even domestically, we are becoming increasingly aware of the menace and impact of the misinformation and disinformation in that area, all of which aims to mislead, to anger, to influence values and, ultimately, to change behaviour. We might want to apply the same focus to how party political funding is being used to change the nature our debates and some of our democratic choices, but I do not have enough time this afternoon to talk about that, and to do so would be to stray off topic.
Obviously, the antidote to this is openness, truth, the rule of law and having a free flow of information. For the courts to be used as a venue for the vexatious, the speculative and the downright malicious use of the law to hinder that process of the free flow of information simply serves to harm legitimate business interests, to harm democracy, to harm our lives and, ultimately, to harms our ability to live our lives in the manner that we would otherwise choose. That is why this is so important. This afternoon, Members have been able to use parliamentary privilege to highlight many examples of concern, and it was good and useful that that was able to be done, to illustrate for anyone who reads or watches our proceedings the pernicious nature of how the courts and the legal system are being used to silence, intimidate, cow and otherwise get people to vacate the space of public discourse.
The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition has a number of proposals, some of which have been mentioned in the debate. I would like to highlight three of them. The first seems to be fairly fundamental, and I hope that the Minister will address it directly. Should not an accelerated process be put in place to dispose of SLAPPs at the earliest possible opportunity, so that a judge can take an early decision on the merit or otherwise—let us be honest, in most cases it is otherwise—of these kinds of actions? We should also be looking at what sanctions can be put in place to deter and delegitimise the use of SLAPPs in the courts. Also, we should be looking at what protective measures can be put in place to safeguard individuals and those who act as public watchdogs to protect them from SLAPPs and to ensure that where the legal process advances, they are able to fight back on something approximating to a level playing field. I would not want to be overly prescriptive about that, however, because this is just the start of the debate.
While today’s debate has given us a very useful and necessary opportunity to highlight this issue, the issue requires much more than what each of us has been able to say this afternoon. It requires much more than a Backbench Business debate. It requires the Government to act, and it requires them to do so in a way that sets aside all private interests.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate, and congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on securing it and on his excellent speech. He is rightly renowned as not only an advocate but a practitioner of free speech, as, indeed, we saw in the House yesterday.
On that subject, I should add, very briefly, that as the right hon. Gentleman knows his history, perhaps better than the Prime Minister, he will be aware that both Leo Amery and Oliver Cromwell secured the results that they desired in short order with the departure of Chamberlain and the Rump Parliament—although we should not stretch these analogies too far: Cromwell required a company of musketeers to clear out the Rump, which included pulling the Speaker from his chair, and in any event the Rump was back six years later quickly followed by the restoration of the monarchy, which I do not think is what Cromwell had intended. But I digress.
May I—personally, but I am sure that I speak for a number of other Opposition Members—send our solidarity to Charlotte Leslie? I worked with her on middle east matters, and still do, although she is no longer a Member of Parliament. I wish her well, and hope that she is successful in resisting the appalling bullying conduct against her. Let me also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who is a co-sponsor of the debate and who has also been assiduous in raising this matter inside and outside Parliament.
We heard many passionate speeches this afternoon, from, for example, the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), and the hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). I want to praise, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), who made a difficult speech on a sensitive subject. She raised not only important issues relating to this debate and to domestic violence, but other issues as well, including one on which I will not elaborate because it is not a subject for today, but which I consider important none the less. I refer to the nature of prosecutors. We saw something of that in the instance of the Horizon scandal and the post offices, but my hon. Friend made the point again about prosecutors other than the Crown Prosecution Service. She also mentioned the role of the media and their disproportionate power, and I will address that in a moment, because I think it is relevant to the debate. First, however, let me make some general comments about lawfare, or SLAPPs, while trying to avoid descending too much into jargon.
SLAPPs are an increasing feature in the UK court system—or perhaps “the English court system” is a better way of putting it—and are an abuse of that system. Their intention is to silence legitimate interests not by merit or argument but by process and oppressive conduct, and they prevent journalists, investigators and even regulatory bodies from shining light on issues of great public interest. Over the last few days, I have attended briefings from lawyers, investigators and writers to hear about their first-hand experience of SLAPPs, and I am grateful for that. They allege that the English court system is being used to play out this tool of legal harassment. The purpose of this debate is to discuss the evidence for SLAPPs and the reason they are prevalent in this jurisdiction. Is it that our legal system favours them, or is it that those who employ them are over-represented in the UK? I think it is probably both.
That said, we need to get the balance right. Freedom of speech is central to our values in the UK—the Lord Chancellor has made that clear with his proposed Bill of Rights—but inequality of arms and abusive conduct in litigation can work both ways. For every David sued by Goliath—for every oligarch chasing an investigative reporter—there may be a tabloid newspaper willing to libel an innocent citizen knowing that they can afford neither the cost of bringing a claim nor the risk of losing one. I will be happy today if the Minister first acknowledges we have a problem, and secondly undertakes to go and look for a solution. I do not have one that I think is bullet-proof, and I do not immediately expect him to. On the other hand, I hope he will not bury his head in the sand and deny that this is a substantial problem that is bringing our internationally revered justice system into disrepute. I doubt he will, having heard the compelling testimony of earlier speakers and the case histories they have presented.
We have heard from several speakers about the case of Tom Burgis and the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation. Since the publication of his book, “Kleptopia”, Tom, his publisher HarperCollins and the Financial Times, for which he writes, have been subjected to a torrent of litigation by the ENRC. I have a copy of the book here that I have borrowed from the House of Commons Library, as I am afraid I have not had time to get to Waterstones, but I have promised that I will buy a copy to even up that case’s financial balance a little.
The ENRC, as we have heard, is subject to an ongoing investigation by the Serious Fraud Office focused on allegations of bribery, fraud and corruption, which resulted in the procurement of mineral assets in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But the ENRC has not just brought a legal case against Tom Burgis and the Financial Times; it has also brought proceedings against the SFO.
I have my own quarrels with the SFO, as do the Government, and the Attorney General announced last year that she will investigate its mishandling of the Ziad Akle case—I found out this week from a parliamentary question that the investigation has yet to start. Many of the SFO’s problems come from a lack of resources. The ENRC spends as much on litigation each year as the SFO’s entire budget. The fact the ENRC feels so emboldened as to sue a UK Government Department when that same Department is currently investigating it for bribery, fraud and corruption should concern the Minister.
I received an email about a week ago from a company called Riverside Advisory, which describes itself as a private client communications service and reputation management company. Riverside Advisory is acting on behalf of the ENRC, and the email asked whether I wanted to meet it, perhaps because it believes I am still a member of the Justice Committee. The Chair of the Committee may have received a similar email.
Andy Slaughter
I see the hon. Gentleman in his place, and I commend him for his learned speech. Riverside Advisory wishes to piggyback on the Select Committee’s inquiry into fraud and the justice system to tell us about its exasperations at its treatment by the SFO. Riverside Advisory filed a high-profile civil claim at the High Court last summer on an allegation of misfeasance in public office and it has offered to brief me, so I might take up that briefing. Other hon. Members may want to join me, I do not know.
I will now speak to the inequality of arms. SLAPPs have several identifying features, but a common thread in all SLAPP cases is the ability of the claimant to continue the lawsuit for many months, sometimes years, due to their enormous financial resources. The defendant then spends money trying to defend the action, which can prove financially ruinous even if they win, or if they win on most points. If they risk losing the case, the costs are such that it is tempting to concede at an early stage. This self-censorship or chilling effects means we never hear about most SLAPPs, let alone the information that has been supressed.
That disproportionality also feeds into the number of claims filed against a person or organisation, and claimants are increasingly pursuing individuals. As we have heard, they are pursuing journalists rather than newspapers, which gives a clue to their motivation. Why sue an impecunious writer rather than a media group? Because intimidation is more important than damages. Similarly, by bringing multiple proceedings the claimant seeks to overwhelm the defendant. SLAPPs are not a tool to set the record straight or to protect a previously unblemished reputation; they are a tool to silence public participation, to bully and to halt public criticism.
As far as I am aware, there is currently no judicial guidance or legislation expressly dealing with SLAPP cases, although, of course, English judges will take a robust line with parties they think are abusing the court process. Just this week, the High Court threw out a five-year-old negligence case for warehousing—maintaining a suit while doing the bare minimum to progress the litigation—but that is a long way from the position in many US states that have specific anti-SLAPP laws in place. London is already seen as friendly to SLAPPs and the people who bring them. If other jurisdictions are proactive in being anti-SLAPP, even more actions will be commenced here. The Foreign Policy Centre surveyed 63 investigative journalists across 41 countries and found that the UK is the most frequent international country of origin for legal threats.
I await the Minister’s telling us whether he recognises the problem and the scale of it and any ideas he has to fix it—particularly how we can rein in the oligarchs, their corporate vehicles and rottweiler law firms without further limiting the ability of genuine victims of press vilification and intrusion to get justice. I fear that the Government have a poor record on both points. The lurid stories of Tory donors that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill recounted in the Elections Bill debates earlier this week suggest that the Tories are not ready to take on vested interests, and the shameful way they sidelined the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry, which sought to provide low-cost litigation for claimants and defendants in media cases, proved they are not prepared to offend the media barons.
Investigative journalists are a key component of a democratic society, which is why they are anathema to repressive regimes around the world. They risk their reputations, their assets and sometimes their lives to expose corruption. All they ask from the Government, who purport to believe in free speech, is to make the rules of the game fair. It is not only writers and journalists but investigators and even public bodies, as we heard, that are prevented from carrying out their functions; and it is not only defamation suits but privacy, data and even judicial review claims being perverted to this end.
There is more the Government can do to protect people against SLAPPs and to ensure that freedom of speech and expression is not curtailed by an unelected, seriously wealthy few and their agents, including, shamefully, some of the best-known law firms in this country. We could start with clearer judicial guidance and better regulation of the legal profession, and indeed measures to control costs, but we may need legislation. We cannot continue to do nothing—for the sake of victims of SLAPPs, but also the court system in this country and the Government’s reputation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) on securing this important debate, and the Backbench Business Committee on raising the profile of this important subject.
I will make two points about the sub judice ruling. First, as the Minister for the courts in the Ministry of Justice, I would not want to comment on any live or recent cases, for obvious reasons, including the case of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), although like the SNP Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), I pay tribute to her bravery and courage in talking as she did on her experience of domestic abuse. The other point concerns the 17th century, where the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), lingered briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) made the point that we are all incredibly privileged, under article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, to have the right to stand up in this House under parliamentary privilege, knowing that we cannot be taken to court for what is said. That means we all enjoy the freedom to speak out without fear of those powers and those rich people we have been talking about. It is important that we have been able to put that on the record. It shows Parliament at its best when we have these sorts of debates, with colleagues showing what I think is consensus on these matters and speaking with great passion. I pay tribute to all the speeches we have heard.
Let me set out our position. All of us can be proud of the respect that the UK judiciary and legal profession attract around the globe. One of this country’s great exports is the common law system and rule of law principles which are fundamental aspects of our constitutional arrangement. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) spoke about the value of legal services and he is absolutely right. In 2019, the sector contributed over £29.6 billion gross value added to the economy and generated revenue of over £36 billion—that is many jobs in our constituencies.
Transparency and integrity are key to the proper functioning of the courts and to the law. Those values underpin public scrutiny of the powerful and maintain confidence in our laws. Let me be clear: today’s speakers are right to highlight the rare instances where the law is being weaponised as lawfare. SLAPPs represent an abuse of the legal system—let me be clear about that—as they rely upon threatening tactics to silence free speech advocates who act in the public interest. Public participation enriches all our lives and our democracy.
Having said that, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, who, towards the end of his speech, spoke about the question of balance. We do have to approach this in a balanced way. We must be cautious to respond to SLAPPs in a proportionate way that continues our tradition of balancing individual rights with the public good.
Let me talk about actions we have taken and are taking at home and abroad in this area. I want to reassure the House of the Government’s commitment to act whenever the rule of law is under attack. We acted decisively in 2013 to introduce reforms to the Defamation Act 2013 to curb the practice of what is called libel tourism, which had allowed a number of overseas claimants to use our courts to challenge publications with small circulations in this country. A number of colleagues, including the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, spoke about how England and London in particular had become a centre for international libel, but under section 9 of the Act the courts must now be satisfied that England and Wales is the most appropriate jurisdiction in which to hear a claim. The courts have robustly interpreted this test, notably in the Court of Appeal case of Wright v. Ver. While these reforms have succeeded in tempering international libel litigation in the UK, we are now exploring further whether further reform may be necessary when litigation targets public participation specifically.
I note that, according to the most recent Royal Courts of Justice statistics, defamation cases in the High Court in 2020 were in line with the average number for the past decade, at 152. That suggests we must not be premature in launching a response to SLAPPs but instead grow our evidence base through careful monitoring, as Lord Wolfson, my ministerial colleague in the Ministry of Justice, undertook to do in the House of Lords last June.
I want to commend the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition for its support and advocacy in this field. Ministry of Justice officials are monitoring anti-SLAPP efforts in neighbouring nations. This is a fast-evolving jurisdiction which none the less warrants a considered response.
Open justice and free speech must be a core feature of any democracy. The Ministry of Justice recently launched the Bill of Rights consultation with an explicit aim to strengthen protection of the key British value of free speech. Our proposals intend to provide statutory guidance to the courts on the utmost importance attached to the right to freedom of expression. This is particularly important when considering whether an interference with the right to freedom of expression is proportionate
“for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”
or when set against the wider public interest.
The right to freedom of expression is protected by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, which is given effect in domestic courts by the Human Rights Act 1998. We are signatories to the ECHR and I can assure colleagues we will remain so. Our proposals for a Bill of Rights will go even further to promote this country’s proud tradition of freedom and reinforce the democratic prerogatives of elected Members in this House over the legislative process in respect of the expansion of human rights.
It must be said that free expression is not an absolute right. There is a delicate interplay involving the need to protect security, the right to a private life, keeping citizens safe and taking steps to protect against harm to individuals. Our ongoing human rights consultation closes in March 2022, after which we will set out detailed plans to reinforce our great tradition of free speech.
A number of colleagues spoke about investigative journalism. We recognise that it plays an important part in keeping us all informed and promoting accountability where there is wrongdoing. Officials from my Department are monitoring threats against journalists in the form of SLAPPs, working closely with civil society stakeholders who tirelessly support journalists under threat to understand the immense financial and psychological burden that a few have endured when faced with these actions. Where journalists face physical threats, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s national action plan for the safety of journalists exists to support their security and wellbeing.
We are not alone in combating SLAPPs. The Ministry of Justice is collaborating with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to ensure a united stance on international engagement and media freedom around the world. I am pleased to announce that the UK will be a member of the Council of Europe’s inaugural working group on SLAPPs thanks to our diplomatic collaboration. The working group is comprised of experts in law and media policy who will begin working this year on an anti-SLAPP draft recommendation for member states due in December 2023.
We have also met the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s representative on freedom of the media’s team to discuss common objectives in addressing SLAPPs. Meanwhile, the Media Freedom Coalition has continued to expand since its foundation in 2019 and consists of 50 members who have pledged to improve media freedom at home and abroad. It has also issued 20 statements on the deteriorating situations for media freedom concerns in various countries, including Yemen, the Philippines, Belarus, Egypt, China, Hong Kong, Myanmar and Russia.
The Government recognise that global media freedom increases security and prosperity for all, which is why that was a cornerstone of our G7 presidency. Misinformation can undermine public order and even health, particularly during the covid-19 pandemic. To that end, the UK has supported UNESCO’s global media defence fund by committing £3 million over five years and encouraging contributions from others.
Further, the UK has provided more than £400 million in official development assistance to the media and free flow of information in the past five years. We are consistently in the top five aid donors to the media sector globally. I recognise the strength of feeling in the House today, given the importance of the principles at play. In the light of the evidence provided in today’s debate, I will be giving SLAPPs in UK courts urgent consideration.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have been here purely to listen to the debate, but I have one question for the Minister. Does he accept that both Government and Opposition parties are targets of systematic attempts to buy political influence? If so, does he accept that the people who are trying to check the legitimacy of such donations must be properly protected?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend, who has a track record of scrutinising such matters, makes a very good point. I would simply say one thing: the Opposition spokesperson mentioned donations to our party, but we should all be concerned about recent stories of certain donations from an individual connected with the Chinese Communist party to a Member of the House.
As I said, I will be giving SLAPPs in UK courts urgent consideration. I want to make it clear that the Government are committed to a robust defence of transparency and freedom of speech. We will not tolerate anything that risks tarnishing the integrity of our judicial and legal profession.
Dr Lewis
I am sorry to come back, but that was not a reply to my intervention. I made it quite clear that parties on both sides of the House are subject to the problem. I am looking for a commitment from the Government that when people are trying to do due diligence and check on behalf of their party or any other organisation within their party that donations are legitimate—when they are trying to see whether a donation is clean money or dirty money—the Government will recognise the need for them to be protected and not sued. Will the Minister give a straightforward answer to that question?
James Cartlidge
Let me be clear to my right hon. Friend. I was simply referring to the debate as a whole. I recognise that he referred to all parties; I was just putting in some balance because we had only heard about one party. On his point, I am more than happy to meet him and look at the detail of what he proposes, because I do not think it is directly relevant to the matters that we have been debating.
It is important to consider lawfare threats in the broader context of Government action to curb abusive foreign influence. Last year, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy brought in the National Security and Investment Act 2021 precisely to target foreign state interference in our economy.
Bob Seely
I am grateful to the Minister for listening to the debate. He says that the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) was not directly relevant but, with great respect, it was, because we need to protect people such as Charlotte Leslie, who are trying to do due diligence; we need to protect officials at the SFO to ensure that they are not hounded individually; and we need to protect journalists and people here. We need to protect quite a lot of people in this debate. He says that the Government will do everything in their power, which is great, but we need to get on and act because there is a real specific problem at the moment.
James Cartlidge
I recognise that there is a lot of concern about sources of money. The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) and a number of other colleagues have talked about the source of funding. I do recognise its importance, but stress that the legal profession has a robust due diligence mechanism in place to prevent dirty money corrupting our courts. Anti-money laundering regulations exist to combat illicit financing. The suspicious activity reporting regime requires legal professions to report to the UK financial intelligence unit within the National Crime Agency where terrorist activity or money laundering is suspected. Law enforcement officials must act safe in the knowledge that the Government defend their investigative remit as we all collectively rely on their industry. There has been a lot of talk about following the money. I just make the point that we do have robust regulations in place, as my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee said earlier.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I know that he is working very hard on these issues. He is right to talk about suspicious activity reports. The problem with them is that, for far too long, we have prioritised quantity over quality. Will he focus on this with his colleagues at the Home Office to make sure that we make this a meaningful process? May I gently say to him that the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) is germane? It is a clear SLAPP. If somebody is trying to do the right thing in the public interest, and, in effect, a litigation stops that, then that is a classic SLAPP and something that we should all be concerned about.
James Cartlidge
I certainly recognise it from what my right hon. and learned Friend said. I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) if I misinterpreted his question. I was seeing it perhaps in a different context—
Dr Lewis
I did not want to mention Charlotte Leslie specifically, but we have spent plenty of time hearing about the Charlotte Leslie case, so I will now mention her specifically. The fact is that she was trying to see whether the money that was being offered by somebody who wanted to take over a political organisation within the Conservative party was clean or dirty. As a result of her doing her duty, she is threatened with financial ruin. If my hon. Friend the Minister cannot see the relevance of my asking for protection for such people in this debate, then he needs to go back and restudy his brief. I am sorry to put it in those terms, but I cannot put it in any other way.
James Cartlidge
I will respond to the intervention first, because this is important. I said at the beginning that I would not comment on specific cases no matter how—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We will be very careful about specific cases. I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, but the Minister is being rightly careful. There are perhaps some discussions that might better take place not here in the glare of publicity.
James Cartlidge
I will come to what I think is one of the most important points—my final substantive point—which is about costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight and a number of other colleagues have talked about the way in which costs are used—I think his words were to “financially destroy” journalists. As has been made clear, SLAPPs often threaten journalists with ruinous cost claims. In recent years, civil litigation costs, including defamation, have been subject to greater control. The Government commenced the no win, no fee conditional fee agreement—the CFA reforms—in part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, for defamation and privacy cases. This meant that the lawyer’s success fee was no longer payable by the losing party. This further controls the costs of these cases and gave effect to our legal obligations under the MGN v. UK judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in 2011. We are keeping the existing costs protection regime in place for the time being. This means that after-the-event insurance premiums are recoverable for defamation and privacy cases as the CFA reforms are in force. The ATE regime enables parties with a good case to litigate and discharge their article 10 rights for freedom of expression without the fear of having to pay potentially ruinous legal costs if their case fails. This approach controls costs but protects access to justice, as parties with good cases can still benefit from recoverable ATE insurance in respect of adverse costs.
We also introduced a rule that means that costs that are disproportionate will not be recoverable even when they are reasonably or necessarily incurred. The rule is intended to control the costs of activity that is clearly disproportionate to the value, complexity and importance of the claim, as is the case in SLAPPs.
Let me be absolutely clear, however: if more action is needed, I am happy to look at it. I recognise that this is an important issue. [Interruption.] I thought that was another phantom intervention—I apologise. I will wrap up.
This country will always support vigorous debate, here and abroad, and our rule of law requires it. Where we see proof that foreign sources seek to undermine our values, using the law against our national interests, the Government are poised to act. I ask today’s speakers to work with us as we consider the full sweep of legislative and regulatory reforms available to stop lawfare on our soil. The debate has had an impact, and we will respond. I am grateful to all speakers who have taken part.
Mr David Davis
I have to say that before we started I did not necessarily expect this debate to be a particular success, because it deals with an industry that hides evil in plain sight and it is pretty difficult to deal with something that can do that, yet we have had a formidably effective debate. Whether it was the detailed, astonishing insights into how the Russians operate from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), the localised issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), or the courageous exposition by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) of what happened to her, the contributions have demonstrated the impact on ordinary people: the simple people we aim to represent.
At a grander level, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) made the best speech I have ever heard him give—I hope he will forgive me for saying that. It was formidable, passionate and went right to the point. It was then picked up, of course, by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who talked about the kleptosphere and how we have to deal with that.
To come to the substance of the debate, the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), rightly said that it needs much more than a Back-Bench debate. There is no two ways about that. It is difficult and will be difficult. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) crystallised the whole thing when he rightly said that we need to make the rules of the game fair, in a game where one side has enormous resources—even measured against the resources of Government—and the other side does not. We have to think about whether we are putting enough effort into it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight made clear, these people have made an industry out of devising incredibly complex tactics to exploit the Human Rights Act, using all the articles, one against the other. I say this to him: I welcome what he said about recognising that, but I think the difficulty he had in answering the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), demonstrated the complexity and detailed nature of the problems. We must please not rely, therefore, on the consultation on the Bill of Rights or whatever. The matter requires a special look and careful attention.
The huge authority of the day was of course the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). I will simplify everything he said, which was basically a tutorial for all of us, down to the last point he made: we can pick the best of the anti-SLAPP legislation in the States and other places. That is the way to go. We have to start with a proper, detailed and tight investigation, and deliver off the back of the best practice elsewhere. That is my request of the Minister. He has done a sterling job of dealing with a difficult issue and I hope that he will carry on in that direction.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The right hon. Gentleman has already spoken, but he has the leave of the House to speak again.
Liam Byrne
This has been one of the most remarkable debates that I have sat through in 18 years in the House. The issue is extremely serious, there has been a high level of cross-party consensus and immense practical detail has been offered. I have been in the Minister’s position, when there is turbulence at the top. I urge him to keep his head down and to plough on. We cannot afford anything less.
Thirty-two years ago, President Gorbachev came to the Council of Europe and talked about his dream of a common European home and a single legal space, our great gift to the world. That dream is now shattered, but that means that we have a special obligation in this country, as the home of the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, to be a beacon and a champion of freedom, rights and free speech. That is the challenge to which the Minister must now rise.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman had the leave of the House to speak again.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of lawfare and the UK court system.
Mental Health Act 1983: Detention of People with Autism and other Lifelong Conditions
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to address the House in a debate on an issue that has great resonance with and importance to many people and families across the country—the continued detention of autistic people and people with learning disabilities under the civil provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983. I am grateful to the National Autistic Society and Mencap for working with me in the run-up to the debate.
Remember, these are people who have committed no offence. They are not even alleged to have committed offences. They have been detained for what is still defined as a mental disorder. They have done nothing wrong. Here are some bald statistics relating to the use of powers under the 1983 Act. At the end of November 2021, there were 2,085 people with autism or a learning disability in in-patient units; 1,234 of them were autistic people, 200 of whom were under 18—they were children. The average length of detention is 5.4 years, some people having been detained for more than 20 years. In September 2021 there were 3,620 reported instances of restrictive interventions, and 595 of them involved children. Those interventions involved physical and, very often, chemical restraint. Those are not the complete figures, because there was data for only 31 out of 55 NHS providers and four of 16 private providers, so the real figure will be higher.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on bringing forward this debate on an issue that is massive in his constituency and mine. The number of detentions under the 1983 Act seems to decline with age, but there seem to be significantly higher numbers of cases among children and young adults. Does he agree that there is a better chance of rehabilitation and wellness when mental health issues are dealt with properly from as young an age as possible than when there is long-term detention with no counselling or rehabilitation?
Sir Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He has a long-standing interest in autism issues, in Northern Ireland in particular. He is right that if there is early intervention, more can be done to prevent a lifelong condition such as autism becoming a co-morbid mental health condition. I will explain that in a little while.
Behind the statistics are real-life stories of people whose lifelong conditions have led to the system, however well-intentioned it might be, ascribing a lower value to their quality of life. That implicit judgment, I believe, runs through everything from the continued lumping together of autism and learning disabilities with mental health conditions, which in many cases is wholly out of date and inappropriate, to the discriminatory and unjust application of “do not resuscitate” guidance to people with these conditions. Those are abuses in plain sight.
Furthermore, the profound sense that the system is, in effect, making assumptions about the life of people with learning disabilities in particular has been exacerbated by the use of DNRs during the covid pandemic. Not only do we need to stop new orders being issued inappropriately to people with learning difficulties, but existing inappropriate DNRs need to be retracted. I ask the Minister: when will the Government act on the Care Quality Commission review recommendations about better staff training and family involvement in decision making about care and treatment?
It is no longer good enough for people with learning disabilities to be discharged from hospital with a form in the bottom of their bag, effectively having signed away their rights about the end of their own life. That is what we are talking about; I cannot put it more bluntly than that.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for securing this debate. We are heavily relying on hospitals to manage individuals with complex needs, which costs the NHS thousands of pounds per individual per week. If we invested more in care in the community, perhaps using the coming health and social care levy, we could prevent hurt or trauma to individuals and save money for the NHS.
Sir Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the waste of resources that I am afraid underlies much of this. I shall come to some of the figures, which are pretty shocking. He is right to highlight the levy that is being introduced in April. It is imperative that the £12 billion that we are told is being earmarked as part of the £36 billion to be raised from the levy is actually used on social care.
The worry we all have is that the money will be eaten up by spending on the health backlog, and that there will be no audit trail at all to make it possible to ensure that it is, in effect, ring-fenced and used in social care. I put that big challenge to Ministers. The Health Secretary knows my strong view; I was writing about it in the national media on Sunday. We have to really laser in on these issues.
The horror of Winterbourne View is still seared into my mind 11 years on, together with other instances of abuse. But in general, we are not in this position because of malice or hostility towards people with autism or a learning disability; we are here because of indifference, frankly. It is all too easy to make the assumption that because the person has been detained for their own safety, the letter of the law has been followed and the clinicians have given their opinion, that will just have to do. That really is not good enough in this day and age.
Recent news coverage of the cases of Tony Hickmott and Patient A has brought these issues into stark relief. I will briefly mention Mr Hickmott’s case, which was highlighted by the media just before Christmas. Ongoing legal proceedings mean that I must limit my remarks, but I read reports that this gentleman has been detained for more than 20 years under this system—nearly half his entire life. That is deeply distressing for his family and should be of grave concern to the rest of us.
Patient A’s case was reported in The Sunday Times just after new year, the result of some excellent investigative journalism. He has been confined for over four years so far in a secure apartment at the Priory Hospital Cheadle Royal. That apartment—I use the word advisedly—is the size of a large living room. He is monitored by CCTV. His food and medication are passed through a hatch. He is now 24 years of age. The story of his life leading up to this incarceration is heartbreaking in itself but also emblematic of failure. The interventions made exacerbated his existing anxiety, creating a descending spiral of deterioration in his health that has resulted in over-medication, more restrictions and even poorer mental and physical health. We are spending money on harming people rather than saving them.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
It is so good to have my right hon. and learned Friend on the Back Benches in some respects; he is such a champion of this cause and is making a very important contribution. Does he agree that it is a completely false economy not to be thinking smarter, and lazy not to be able to let people out of NHS facilities where there may be better community facilities and better working with the families? It would, of course, mean a much better life for the person involved as well. The chemical cosh that he just referred to and the use of restraint, which in some places is disproportionate, is a sign of failure, and that the person is not being looked after appropriately. That is what needs to change.
I should have declared my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests at the beginning of this intervention.
Sir Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend, who has long experience of this matter, having served with distinction as Children’s Minister and as a long-standing campaigner on these issues, makes a hugely important point about the chemical cosh that is medication. I think he and I agree that we are not here to single out or criticise many dedicated care staff and NHS workers who do their very best to care for and support in-patients. They deserve our thanks; they are doing the day-to-day work. I am talking about the system that allows this to happen—that allows, in effect, a standing reproach to us all. This is 2022, not 1922.
There are two strands to the approach that we need. First, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, earlier and better interventions are needed to prevent cases spiralling into crisis in the first place. Secondly, better community-based alternatives to the continued detention of in-patients are needed. It is my firm belief that with the better commissioning of community support, the need for recourse to detention would inevitably fall. That would create a virtuous—rather than vicious—circle, which would benefit all.
There is not only a social, health or moral price being paid for this failure, but a financial one. In 2015 the National Audit Office estimated that, in the year 2012-13, the NHS spent £557 million on in-patient services for people with learning disabilities whose behaviour could be challenging. More than half a billion pounds was spent on services that harm people, and that figure is from nearly 10 years ago. The cost now will be considerably more. That speaks volumes about the failure of the present system.
Although the Mental Health Act was reformed in 1983, it is, in essence, a replication of a regime that was created under the Mental Health Act 1959. That is a 60-year-old framework; to say that it is out of date understates the argument.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way, and for the passion and knowledge that he brings to this topic. He refers to out-of-date legislation and how things have moved on. He will know from his experience as Justice Secretary that if we thought that we were applying the same regimes in terms of detention and use of restraint to people who had been convicted of offences after the passing of 60 years, we would rightly be outraged. Should we not be rightly outraged now that this is being done to people who have committed no offence and have not had the protection of due process that those going through the justice system have?
Sir Robert Buckland
I have good news, because it is Government policy to update the Mental Health Act. That is the plan that I and others, when I was in Cabinet, agreed on and I know that it is what the Minister will speak about. Reforming the Mental Health Act is Government policy because, goodness me, we have work to do. Between 2006 and 2016, the number of detentions rose by a staggering 40%. We owe thanks to the work of people such as the outstanding Sir Simon Wessely, whose independent review in 2018 gave the Government the clear course that I know they are adopting and following.
I particularly welcome the disaggregation of autism and learning disability from mental health in law and the end to their being classed as a mental disorder under section 3 of the existing Act. According to the Government’s policy, there has to be a clinically established concurrent mental health condition before detention can be allowed, and there will be a 28-day limit. All that makes immense sense, and I particularly look forward to the Government’s introducing a statutory duty to provide adequate community-based services, such as supported housing. In the White Paper that the Minister introduced before Christmas, we saw really healthy and useful reference to supported housing. It is my belief that, without that, we cannot create effective community-based services.
We still do not have a fully clear picture of the current commissioning landscape across England, but we know that people are being left in NHS-funded detention, because the lack of resources for local government means there just are not enough local government-commissioned community services for people to go home, back to their families and back to their local areas. Legislative change cannot come soon enough, so I would be extremely grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could confirm the Government’s intention to bring forward that legislation, whether it will be first via the pre-legislative scrutiny process and, if so, when we can expect its introduction.
As time is short, I want to speak briefly about the Transforming Care agenda. We know that, when all agencies work together at the same pace, it is excellent, but the trouble is that we still have agencies dragging their heels or causing problems that mean people are spending longer in detention than they need to. The readmission of patients who are being discharged is another depressing example of our failure to break the vicious cycle in many cases.
We know what “good” looks like; we have the NHS England “Building the Right Support” service model and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. We know that there are pockets of good practice that the Government are actively promoting and supporting, but more needs to be done to join that up. If we are to see these figures starting to come down, consistent with the Government’s own priorities, the time for action is now.
There are, therefore, two things that the Government can do. They can not only bring forward the legislation, but fulfil their pledge to add more substance to the strategies they have outlined. The £74 million, pledged in the 2020 Budget to help with what are known as the double running costs when people with a learning disability or autism are discharged into the community, is extremely welcome. I know there are funding commitments in the NHS long-term plan to help the development of community support. However, as the recent Health and Social Care Committee inquiry noted, we still are not in the place we need to be. We still do not have that level of support that will make the discharge of patients a much more seamless and successful process. I know that ending those perverse incentives and this artificial division between the NHS and local government is part of the integration agenda, and I look forward to the White Paper that my hon. Friend will be publishing very soon, but I want everything to be joined up, in a way I was acutely conscious of when I was Justice Secretary.
I will end on this note: I was acutely conscious of the need for greater speed when it came, for example, to the approval of the recommendation of clinicians, which was the responsibility of my Department. Prior to the onset of covid, I collaborated directly with the then Health Secretary to jointly pursue the Mental Health Act reform agenda. My abiding regret is that I was not able to do more, and I want to say that I am sorry that I was not able to do more, but here I am in my place asking my friends to carry on the work, to pick up the ball and to take it further for all the people we represent and their families. By calling this debate and by making that direct request to Government to act, I hope that together we can make the necessary changes and save lives.
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
I take this opportunity to genuinely thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) for securing a debate on this vitally important topic. Improving the care and treatment of autistic people is something he has championed, particularly through his commitment to reform of the Mental Health Act. I thank him for his continued work on this matter, no matter where he is sat. I give him my commitment that I share his determination for change, and I will continue to work with him. There is absolutely no place for poor-quality care for autistic people or anybody with a learning disability in our society. The system needs change.
I recently visited Norfolk to meet the families of those affected by the tragedy that occurred at Cawston Park Hospital, which was the subject of a previous Adjournment debate. I met the parents of the young people who suffered and sadly died and heard at first hand about the experience of people with autism and people with Down’s syndrome in health and care settings, and it was shocking. Such experience has too often fallen unacceptably short of the standard of care that individuals and families—those people who are the most vulnerable and often voiceless—should rightly expect. It is truly awful to hear about such appalling experiences.
We are taking action for children, young people and adults, for people who have been in-patients for longer than they should, and to prevent people from being admitted, even for a short time, when they do not need to be. I welcome this opportunity to set out the immediate and longer-term actions we are taking. They include our planned Mental Health Act reforms, which will provide the opportunity to change the legal framework and to reinforce and underpin the changes we are making now. I cannot commit today to a timetable for that, but the planning is well under way and I will keep my right hon. and learned Friend informed.
To keep people safe now, all autistic people and people with a learning disability must receive high-quality, safe care. That is our first priority. We know that some people may require support in a mental health hospital; when that is necessary, it should have a clear therapeutic benefit, be the least restrictive support possible, be close to home and be for the shortest possible time. We will not tolerate instances of abuse or poor-quality care.
To ensure that people are safe, all autistic people and people with a learning disability in an in-patient setting now receive a safe and wellbeing review. These reviews, which are led by NHS England, are a priority and the majority will be completed by the end of January. We also fully support the more robust approach that the CQC is taking in increasing the amount of shorter, unannounced inspections and closing hospitals that do not provide a high-quality standard of care.
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned people who are in long-term segregation. There are about 100 of them and a couple of cases were mentioned in the debate. Every single one of them will receive independently chaired reviews of their care and treatment. The reviews will consider how to move towards a less restrictive or, ideally, community-based setting.
As part of a wider £31 million package to support discharge and develop community support, we have provided funding for a senior intervenors pilot. These independent experts will work to resolve blockages in the path to discharge, where there can be multidiscipline teams who basically do not agree or manage to find a solution among themselves. The senior intervenors will help to unblock things for those people in a long-term situation, and move them towards a less restrictive setting and back into the community, which is where we want people wherever possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) mentioned the need to build and make sure we have the right support in the community. The Government want to make sure that, wherever possible, autistic people and people with a learning disability are able to lead full lives in the community, close to their families, with the right support in place to prevent crisis.
In the NHS long-term plan we committed to reduce the number of autistic people and people with a learning disability who are in-patients in mental health hospitals by 50% by the end of March 2024. Since 2015, we have achieved a 29% reduction, which is equivalent to a reduction of around 800 in-patient beds—800 people—and means we need to close around 600 more to meet the target. I am firmly committed to achieving that.
The building the right support programme is our national policy to ensure that autistic people and people with a learning disability are supported in the community, and more than £90 million of additional funding for community services and support for discharges has been provided for 2021-22 to help to achieve that. Joint action across organisations and systems is essential to drive progress, so we are developing an action plan to outline the steps that we and all our partners will take to deliver that action with urgency, and we will publish it as soon as possible. We also know that early diagnosis is key, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, and that prevention and intervention at an early stage are vital, so we are investing £2.5 million to test and implement the most effective ways to reduce autism diagnosis waiting times for children and young people in England. Additionally, we are investing £600,000 in significantly expanding an autism early identification pilot to at least 100 schools over the next three years. Those actions and others set out in our all-age autism strategy, which was published in July, should make a big difference.
I want to touch on the subject of “do not attempt CPR” decisions, which hon. Members have mentioned. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon mentioned the culture; we are working to ensure that there is a culture of compassionate care for autistic people and people with a learning disability that is also of the highest quality. The Department has remained crystal clear that it is unacceptable for DNACPR decisions to be applied in a blanket fashion to any group of people.
We have also developed and trialled the Oliver McGowan mandatory training in learning disability and autism for all health and social care staff, working with Health Education England and Skills for Care. The programme is backed by a £1.4 million investment, and I think it will go a long way towards changing the culture.
We want to end inappropriate detentions for autistic people and people with a learning disability, and we are introducing once-in-a-generation reforms to the Mental Health Act that will be critical to achieving that. Under our proposed reforms, we will limit the scope to detain autistic people or people with a learning disability under section 3 of the Act. We want to prevent the detention under section 3 of people who do not have a co-occurring mental health condition; they simply have a learning disability.
We want to ensure that the right services are in place, allowing individuals to receive the best possible care in the community. Our proposed reforms will create new duties for commissioners to ensure an adequate supply of community services and ensure that every local area understands and monitors the risk of crisis at an individual level. This will transform our capability to provide those services in the community and to keep people safe in their community.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and thank my right hon. and learned Friend again for securing this vital debate. It is important that we continue to listen to people with lived experience and to their families, most importantly, in shaping and delivering high-quality care, both in in-patient settings, where they still exist, and in the community. Having heard some truly shocking experiences as Minister for Care and Mental Health, I am grateful that the debate has given us an opportunity to set out my personal commitment and to give a voice to those people who, for too long, have not had one.
In addition to the work that the Government are undertaking now and in the longer term, we must make sure that all autistic individuals and people with other lifelong conditions are treated with dignity and respect and are able to lead fulfilling lives in their community. I am absolutely determined to see that happen, and I look forward to working with my right hon. and learned Friend; I know that he is determined, too. There should never be an instance of people with a learning disability and autistic people being treated as anything less than equal in our society. He has my commitment that I will work with him to achieve that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I put the Question, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in congratulating the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) on his knighthood. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Congratulations, Sir Robert—I see that we have quite a lot of Sir Roberts around.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Cabinet Office
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
In December 2020, we published the Government’s response to the consultation on the Green Paper on “Transforming Public Procurement”. We intend to bring forward these detailed and ambitious legislative proposals when parliamentary time allows.
[Official Report, 13 January 2022, Vol. 706, c. 631.]
Letter of correction from the Paymaster General:
An error has been identified in my response to these questions.
The correct information should have been:
The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
In December 2021, we published the Government’s response to the consultation on the Green Paper on “Transforming Public Procurement”. We intend to bring forward these detailed and ambitious legislative proposals when parliamentary time allows.
Health and Social Care
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maggie Throup
As we look at policy and amend it like we did last week, it is right that we make sure that we can fill those requirements. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we can, and we have increased the procurement of lateral flow devices. This month, we will get another 750 million lateral flow devices into the UK for January and February.
[Official Report, 18 January 2022, Vol. 707, c. 184.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
The correct response should have been:
Maggie Throup
As we look at policy and amend it like we did last week, it is right that we make sure that we can fill those requirements. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we can, and we have increased the procurement of lateral flow devices. We will get another 750 million lateral flow devices into the UK in January and February.
Petition
South Warwickshire Mega-Council
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 3 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
Biometrics Commissioner and Forensic Science Regulator
(2 years, 3 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
Dr Rupa Huq (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, in line with current Government guidance—although hasn’t that changed again overnight? Never mind—and that of the House of Commission. I am not, because I may be required to speak at any moment. I also remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week before coming on to the estate. They can do so downstairs: I did so the other day, and they gave me a pack of six for the future as well. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Nineteenth Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Session 2017-19, The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator, HC 1970, and the Government Response, Session 2019-21, HC 1319.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for allocating time for this issue to be debated. I also acknowledge the role of the predecessor Science and Technology Committees—some Members who will speak in this debate served on those predecessor Committees, and I pay tribute to their assiduity and tenacity in keeping a focus on this subject—ably assisted by a succession of brilliant Clerks, who continue to this day in the shape of Mr Ben Shave, one of the Clerks who is advising the Committee on these matters.
The issues covered by my Committee and its predecessors are of considerable complexity, but also great importance. The global value of biometrics is expected to reach £21 billion this year, a 130% increase compared with 2016. The perceived vulnerability of passwords, the growing prevalence of mobile devices with biometric capabilities, and wider advances in computing technologies all point to biometrics and forensics playing a greater role in public and private life. In the UK, biometric data obtained via technologies that capture, measure, analyse and process digital representations of our physical or behavioural traits, such as DNA, fingerprints, voice and handwriting, are held by the police on no fewer than four separate databases, while criminal investigations have long relied on the services of private sector and in-house forensic science laboratories.
As I said, the Science and Technology Committee and its predecessors have published a number of reports on forensic science—specifically in 2011, 2013, 2016, 2018 and 2019—and on biometrics in 2015 and 2018. Our sister Committee in the House of Lords has also undertaken a detailed examination of the use of forensic science in the criminal justice system over the course of almost a year. In 2018, our immediate predecessor Committee called on the Government to give statutory powers to the Forensic Science Regulator, a recommendation that—thanks to a private Member’s Bill tabled by my fellow Select Committee Chair and a former member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones)—has now been implemented. We place on record our gratitude to him for his achievement in securing that legislation.
We also said that the Government should strengthen the auditing of standards of compliance; deliver a planned IT upgrade that would fully implement an automatic custody image deletion system for those not convicted of any crime; and ensure that any wider deployment of facial recognition technology is not considered an operational decision for the police but is a matter for Parliament to decide. We said that the treatment of how image databases should be managed and regulated should be subject to similar scrutiny.
Shortly after that 2018 report was published, the Government published their biometrics strategy, which committed to enabling
“more efficient review and automatic deletion of custody images by linking them to conviction status, more closely replicating the arrangements for fingerprints and DNA”.
However, it did not mention the important matter of the accreditation of police laboratories. In a follow-up report, published in 2019, our predecessor Committee concluded that concerns remained about the long-term viability of the market for forensic science services and highlighted the significant risk that that posed to the effective functioning of a criminal justice system. Other recurring concerns raised in that report included gaps in current forensics research, the absence of a mechanism to set clear national research priorities, insufficient oversight of biometric technology, and a lack of scientifically rigorous testing of new biometric technologies. That Committee also expressed worries about the effectiveness and potential bias of facial recognition technologies.
In the 20 months between the publication of that report and the Government response—it is worth noting that 20 months is an unconscionably long time for the Government to take to respond to a detailed and specific set of recommendations—the passage of the Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 gave the regulator new, statutory powers, so our Committee invited the former regulator, the former biometrics commissioner and relevant Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing, to seek their views on where things stood in June of last year.
Professor Gillian Tully, the former forensic science regulator, told us that at the time of her departure, in February 2021,
“neither toxicology nor digital forensics had sufficient capacity to meet the current needs of the service.”
That shortfall in capacity has real-world consequences. Professor Tully spoke of cases that rested on the accusation that an individual was, for example, driving while under the influence of drugs, and cases that she was familiar with had to be dropped. It may not have been a large number, and prioritisation on the part of individual police forces may have also been a factor, but her testimony is worrying nevertheless, at the time when advances in toxicology and forensic science more generally should be playing a greater role in securing convictions. Indeed, in a conversation with a person with current knowledge of the system, I was given to understand that we have only 30 qualified toxicologists operating in the United Kingdom. That is an extraordinary number, considering the weight of responsibility that rests on their shoulders.
In his appearance before our Committee, the Minister acknowledged that he, too, was concerned about capacity, and I know this from conversations separately. He committed to looking urgently at how to stimulate more forensic toxicologists to join the profession. Part of the purpose of today’s debate is to seek from the Minister an update on how that is going and whether the intention is being translated into practice. On digital forensics, we heard about mobile devices and computers sitting in very long queues for analysis, and that convictions that might have been made if there were greater integrity to the laboratory accreditation process have been lost.
Such concerns relate not only to forensics but to biometrics. Professor Paul Wiles, the former commissioner for the retention and use of biometric material—the biometrics commissioner—highlighted four concerns. First, the existing framework governing the use of biometrics by our police forces had not kept pace with developments in biometric technologies, and the Government had not responded to domestic and European Court of Human Rights judgments about the framework. Secondly, the police, the Home Office or some combination of the two had yet to create a proper evidence base for the use of new biometrics, which could complicate the decision-making process around future deployments. Thirdly, the Home Office has yet to update databases containing both biometric data and more general information relating to offenders, convictions and arrests. Finally, Professor Wiles argued that biometrics, together with artificial intelligence and large databases, are the technologies that, at least in part, will drive the future social world in which we live, and their use should therefore be considered a key strategic issue across Government. For a Government who have made a signal commitment to improving conviction rates and protecting society to fail to make use of stunning advances that can help to secure convictions and put into jail people from whom society should be protected is a serious omission.
Professor Wiles also specified several areas where he thought elected Members of Parliament should decide what was not in the public interest. Facial recognition technology is a case in point, as well as the fingerprints we use to log into our phones, and a plethora of applications including voice recognition and gait analysis.
I do not want to give the impression that we were told that the use of all these technologies falls on the negative side of the register—that the advances they comprise are not good for society. That would be the wrong impression. Professor Wiles highlighted the idea of frictionless airports and their potential for eliminating the onerous barrier checks that have come in in response to the terrorism threats of recent years. Advances in technology might allow some relief there, which would be very much in the public interest. However, the point that he and others have made is that the rules need to be clear, there needs to be a co-ordinated cross-Government approach when it comes to formulating those rules, and that we should not delay doing so.
That brings me to the response from the Government to our predecessor Committee’s 2019 report, and the work that has been undertaken since then. I am sure the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) will cover the report in his contribution, as will the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). From my perspective, the key takeaway of our Committee session that questioned the Minister and his colleague Baroness Williams, the Minister for Countering Extremism, is that, although some progress has been made, it does not stand comparison with the progress that should have been made, and the opportunities to protect society from the advances in technology that are available. It was clear to me from the session that the outstanding issues need to be addressed and the pace of action needs to be accelerated.
Several areas require scrutiny in the weeks and months ahead. As of July 2021, 16 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales have joined the Forensic Capability Network, although the Government anticipate that the number will have risen by the time powers in the Forensic Science Regulator Act are fully taken up by the new regulator. Will the Minister update us on the current number of forces that have joined the network?
On a related point, we remain concerned that without the disclosure of data on accreditation and compliance, the Home Office will not be able to evaluate the success of the Forensic Capability Network, or the transforming forensics programme that was launched in 2017. Will the Minister update us on the Government’s plans for measuring the success of the new regime in driving accreditation and compliance? Has the case for a single system of accreditation for both police and private laboratories been considered?
The Government have encouraged some collective decision making through these two initiatives, but in our June 2021 session Professor Tully suggested that attempts to
“work through persuasion rather than any form of mandate”
have now run their course. She stated clearly that there are some areas on which there should be national decision making, even if that results in reversing some decisions that were been taken by previous Ministers and Administrations, whatever good faith and optimism was vested in those decisions at the time. However, the Government have confirmed that there are no plans to establish a new decision-making body specifically for forensic science, citing ongoing work taking place in the Home Office and UK Research and Innovation as a better avenue for determining future priorities and ensuring that capacity grows. I would be grateful for an update from the Minister on this work. What might persuade the Government to revisit the muscular approach the Home Office is taking to this important matter?
In short, the picture is mixed. Some progress is being made, but not nearly enough considering the clarity of what was set out as being needed and the available opportunities. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is being considered in the House of Lords, and forthcoming College of Policing guidance on the use of facial recognition will provide opportunities to strengthen these matters. It will be helpful to hear from the Minister what assessment he has made of the contribution they will make. The Minister’s latest update to the Committee did not contain a publication date for the guidance; can he offer one today, so that we know where police forces stand on facial recognition technology?
There are several other areas I would like an update on. First, on biometrics governance and updates to the framework, the Committee was told in September 2021, following the Court of Appeal judgment in Bridges v. South Wales Police, that the Government were updating the surveillance camera code accordingly and consulting the relevant organisations set out in the governing legislation, including police, local authorities, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the biometrics and surveillance camera commissioner. A revised code of practice was promised towards the end of 2021. We have now passed that date. When can we expect that to be issued?
Secondly, on the timeline for the new automatic deletion system for custody images, the 2024 deadline is approaching. I hope the Minister can update us on the interim steps being taken by the Government. Thirdly, the custody image review has been absorbed into the wider piece of work to implement the Government’s manifesto commitment to empower the police to use new technologies such as biometrics and including facial images within a strict legal framework. Can the Minister confirm what progress is being made on delivering against that manifesto commitment?
I mentioned that the Science and Technology Committee first examined these complex questions in 2011. More than a decade on, our interest in them is undiminished. The developments in technology cause us to commit to taking a close interest in the responses of the Minister today and in the months and years ahead. I urge the Government to have the same sense of determination and purpose in order to achieve the breakthrough in police practice and regulation that the technologies allow.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. It is also a pleasure to serve on the Science and Technology Committee under the chairship of the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I associate myself with his questions and the general points that he made, with one exception. The history of the Science and Technology Committee looking at forensic science goes back even further than he set out. I have been on the Committee a long time, but the first report on the subject came out before I joined it. Called “Forensic science on trial”, the report was published on 29 March 2005. The right hon. Gentleman referred to issues that have been examined repeatedly by the Committee—these are not my speaking notes, Dr Huq—but not to all the reports and the responses of the Government that have been produced on this issue.
The “Forensic Science on Trial” report went through the even longer history of forensic science. The way in which the Home Office has responded over time to the changing science is interesting and relevant. Science and the ability to examine and get information from crime scenes have changed enormously over time. It was only in 1988 that DNA led to the conviction of the double murderer Colin Pitchfork. Since then, DNA has been used thousands of times for many different crime scenes.
What worried the Committee then was that there had been big changes. Back in the early 90s, police forces went along to the people who did forensic science and asked for analysis of things from a crime scene, and they got it with no cost. The then Home Secretary, the noble Lord Blunkett, thought that there should be a more commercial relationship between the Forensic Science Service and police forces, and that the Forensic Science Service should be moved into a public-private partnership body. The Science and Technology Committee looked at that proposal and said that things would be lost if the service was changed in that way. A lot of evidence was taken, and the Committee’s report, which I will summarise, having just read it again, said that the evidence was not there to justify doing that.
Nevertheless, after the 2010 general election, the new coalition Government looked at the funding of the Forensic Science Service. They said that it was losing £2 million a month and things would have to change. They said that there was a real possibility, given that the Forensic Science Service was world leading, that we could sell our services internationally and make money from them. The Committee looked at that and said that the case was not made, because the statistics claiming that the cost was £2 million a month were based on false information. The laboratory at Chorley had already been closed, and the people working in the Forensic Science Service on the other side of Lambeth bridge were very worried about their future. The Committee certainly was not convinced that the changes should be made.
I will say this now so that there is no mistake: the Labour Government made some of the original decisions to change the Forensic Science Service, the coalition Government made a number of changes and the Conservative Government have made further changes. I do not see this as a party political matter at all. Like the Minister and other hon. Members around this Chamber, I want the forensic science facilities, whether private or public sector—it is not about differences between private and public—to yield the best information that will lead to the conviction of criminals. That is the key issue. It is not an ideological issue. Having said that, there has been a failure of Government, right the way through the process, to properly consider how to keep our elite status in world forensic science—it looks as though we have lost it now—and how best to deliver forensic science for the criminal justice system.
One of the conclusions of the Committee’s forensic science report, which was published during the 2010 to 2012 Session, was that if and when the Forensic Science Service disappeared, which it did, one of the things that would be lost was the context of the crime. The private sector does a very good job when it comes to simple, repetitive operations, such as doing fingerprint or DNA analysis. What is missing from the service at present, however, is the ability for the police to go to a public sector body, or a private sector body for that matter, and ask, “What question should we be asking? We are not scientists.” Previously when I visited the Forensic Science Service, it was very strong on the point that it would be able to help the client—the police, the criminal justice system—ask the right questions, which it could then examine scientifically before giving the information back. That has not happened, and that is one of the losses to the service.
The other loss to the service, to which the Government have never really responded, is that when the Forensic Science Service went, the money going into forensic science research and forensic science was lost and has never been replaced. The different science funding bodies do not really recognise forensic science as part of their bailiwick or funding responsibilities. Not only are the right questions not necessarily being asked, but the money going into research and science has been lost, and I believe it should be replaced.
During one of the many inquiries we have had, we heard from Dr Tully, who worked for the Forensic Science Service, then became a regulator and has now gone into academic life. When she came before the Committee, I asked her three or four times whether murderers and rapists would get off because of the changes in the Forensic Science Service, and every time she answered positively—that that would be the case. The right questions would not be asked, so the right information would not be fed into the courts system and very bad people would not be brought to justice. Murder and rape are the worst crimes, but the problem goes right the way through the system. If we do not have a good forensic science service, we do not have a good criminal justice system, because the criminal justice system relies on the scientific interrogation of crime science.
When the original decision was taken to disband the Forensic Science Service and leave things up to the market, there was an internal Home Office problem that I think indicates a broader problem. Professor Silverman, who was then the scientific adviser to the Home Office, told the Committee he was not consulted, and nor was the then Forensic Science Regulator. That indicates that the decision was viewed entirely as a cost-saving issue and not as a way of ensuring that the criminal justice system worked as well as it could to bring criminals to justice.
The other side—which the Committee has written about in every report since, including the latest one—is that now that the Forensic Science Service has effectively been disbanded, we all rely on the market to work. At different times, as the Minister will know, because he has replied to this point, the market in forensic science has been close to collapse for a number of reasons—most recently, because of covid, not as much work was being commissioned. One of the good sides of covid was that there was less crime, so there was less need for forensic science.
Another driver, over a longer period, was that the police were taking a lot of forensic sciences in-house to save money. However, they were not only saving money but using non-ISO-accredited systems to do that. They lost the good Forensic Science Service and replaced it with something with no accreditation, which makes it more challengeable in court. That was another reason why the Committee did not support the disbandment of the Forensic Science Service—because the market was too volatile and not stable enough to ensure that the forensic science that the police and the courts needed would be there to be used.
I do not know why Governments of different political colours have not got this correct and have dragged their feet on the regular call for the Forensic Science Regulator to be put on a statutory footing. It is half on a statutory footing now because my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), with Government support, took a private Member’s Bill through. However, even that Bill does not deal with biometrics in terms of the statutory basis for the regulator, so that demand has only partially been met.
I do not know whether the Minister, who has been in office for a period, knows why the Home Office, under different political parties, has not given the service the political prioritisation that the public would want, because I think the case is overwhelming. The public have an enormous appetite for television shows about forensic science and for reading detective novels, in which cutting up cadavers is the main focus. Yet, at the same time, our forensic service has gone from being one of the best in the world to, quite frankly, being moth-eaten and not as good as it should be.
I have spoken for quite a long time, but I want to emphasise a point that the Chair of the Committee made about custody pictures. If you, Dr Huq, were arrested—I am sure you would not be found guilty of anything—and taken into a police station, your DNA, fingerprints and photograph would be taken. If you were arrested by mistake, your DNA and your fingerprints would be destroyed if you wanted them to be, and you would have no criminal record, but your facial record would remain in the computers. With all the connections those computers have, that is very worrying. Most people do not know that they can ask for those photographs to be deleted. The Chair of the Committee referred to the Government’s commitment that they would be automatically deleted after six years. That is too slow. I do not think police forces have any right to keep a picture of you or anybody else who is not guilty on record, where it can be misused and accessed improperly in many cases. The Government have not, over that period, given the resources to police forces to delete those pictures. However, I have spoken long enough and I will let other people speak.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
The first of our Front Benchers, who is also a Committee member, is Carol Monaghan.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is good to see you back in the Chair, Dr Huq. As you have said, I follow two of my fellow Committee members. I am also speaking from the Front Bench for the SNP. I should state at the start that I prefer to see myself here as a Committee member because this area is devolved to Scotland, and I will make a couple of remarks about that. For me, the big issues are around funding and governance, and I will talk about both.
Forensic science services provide accountability in what is a rapidly changing landscape, with new developments in not only technology and science, as well as in the many techniques we can use to promote greater public confidence and safety. It is in that vein that we are having today’s debate, because all of us want to see moves made to get the Forensic Science Service back up and running in the way it once did.
As I have said, forensic science is devolved in Scotland, and the Scottish Police Authority has its own fully accredited lab. It delivers world-leading forensic services and has over 500 trained staff operating out of four different sites, with scene examination based throughout Scotland. In September 2021, the Scottish Government published their forensic service strategy, which aims to continue to grow that scientific excellence. In March last year, Scotland’s first biometrics commissioner, Dr Brian Plastow—a former police chief superintendent—was appointed, and it is hoped that he will bring great expertise and significant leadership to that role. It is encouraging for us in Scotland that the UK Government have recognised the lead shown by Scotland and intend to watch with interest the work that has been done by the biometrics commissioner and the power to enforce a code of practice for Police Scotland’s biometrics use.
When it comes to forensics, public trust is paramount. It is imperative that when the public are going through criminal justice procedures, or when they are impacted in any way, they can place their trust in the civil justice system as a whole. That needs proper governance and a proper statutory footing: without those things, it is very difficult to get what is required. In their response to our Committee’s 2019 report—I am afraid I have not been a member for quite as long as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), and I do not go back to 2005, but I very much welcome the expertise of my fellow member—the Government stated that they were
“committed to maintaining and improving our world-class forensic services and supporting the forensic scientists who work in them.”
The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), mentioned the evidence we took from Professor Gillian Tully, who described some of the concerns she had. She told the Committee that the closure of forensic science services had led to the loss of significant research funding. In her words,
“that money was lost. It was not then taken and given to anyone else to do research”—
something that the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton has described in detail today. That money has been gone for a number of years, and with it, expertise is dwindling and diminishing. The Chair of the Select Committee has mentioned that we have only 30 toxicologists, a fact that should cause all of us some concerns.
The Government’s response to our questions on this issue has been disappointing and, at times, repetitive. They said:
“The Government fully agrees that funding for forensic research is vital, but that it must come with a full understanding of the research landscape.”
They talked about a guidance document that would be hosted by UK Research and Innovation and made publicly available, enabling the forensic science research community to identify suitable funding routes. As Professor Tully has said, that funding went, and was not replaced. The Government’s response should be more robust than simply, “We’ll provide the means by which people can apply for funding,” because expertise in forensic science does not just mean expertise in forensic science; what people are saying is that they also need to have expertise in writing funding applications. If that has been gone for a long time, it is very difficult to get it back.
We know from the work that we do with research institutions and private research bodies that they have people dedicated to writing these research applications and funding applications. Now, if this is a service that is on its knees and that has not had an injection of funding, we are asking the people working for that service to dedicate more of their energy and resources to apply for funding that quite frankly should be directed to them now, without further delay. It would be good to hear some words on that from the Minister this afternoon.
We know that science funding is important. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton talked about our no longer being a world leader. I would like to think that Scotland still retains some of that expertise, but his point is well made, because without the funding and without the ability not only to conduct research but to train up new people in the techniques that are currently being used, it becomes very difficult for people to operate in the circumstances in which they have been asked to operate.
I will briefly mention laboratory accreditation, which the hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Select Committee, has mentioned already. He has said that 16 forces have already signed up to it, which I suppose is a good start, but we need more data on this issue. We need to know when other forces sign up to the Forensic Science Regulator’s code and, if forces are not signing up, why they are not doing so. Information on that would be helpful.
I suppose that one of the issues that causes the public most concern is the idea of how their biometrics and images are managed. There is a lot of work that the Government need to do in that regard. It is concerning that they are not moving to a system whereby custody images or other biometric information are deleted automatically and at the point where no charges are brought to bear.
The Government have reiterated their position that individuals can request to have that information deleted. That makes the assumption that members of the public know that they can make that request and know that their images have been captured and are still being held. There has been a lot of discussion about this issue. If you were so unfortunate, Dr Huq, as to be taken into custody and images are captured, you might know after this debate that you have a right to ask for them to be deleted. But do we know what other images are being kept?
In fact, a piece of evidence that we took for a report by a predecessor Committee referred to the number of images being held on databases that were not custody images; they were other images. I would like to know about them. My two daughters went on a climate action march during COP26, and I would like to know whether their images were captured and, if so, are they being held? I appreciate that I am talking about Scotland and a devolved issue, but if that march was taking place here in England what would happen with those images? The right to protest and demonstrate—the right to march—is fundamental to democracy. People should be able to do those things without their images being captured and retained.
Public confidence depends on clarity and full disclosure of how these images and other biometric information are used, which is why there is a really strong need for the regulator. The Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) has, of course, put that into practice, which is really helpful, but we need to see action on this issue.
I will finish by saying that the Scottish Government have enshrined statutory powers for an independent regulator to judge the ethics of forensic science for quality and fairness, and to help criminal justice to go beyond the reasonable doubt threshold by using biometric data. It would be good to see what steps the UK Government, if they are truly watching with interest, are taking. I appreciate that Scotland is a much smaller entity, and probably easier to manage than what the Minister is dealing with. However, if there are lessons to be learned, I hope he can learn them and start putting into practice some of the recommendations of the Committee reports.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on securing the debate, and on his elegant critique of Government progress. He asked a comprehensive list of questions about missed deadlines and the like, which I look forward to hearing the Minister respond to. I join him in thanking the members and Clerks of the Science and Technology Committee for all the work that they have done—he listed the number of times that this issue has been looked at and the proper and serious work that has been undertaken.
I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) talk about the history of how we got to where we are, and how none of us here will be looking at this through the eyes of ideology—what should be private or public—but through the eyes of what is most effective. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) said about funding and governance, we should have the ambition to be world leaders in this space—that should be what we are all striving towards.
As Members have already made clear, forensic science is critical to the investigation of crime and the administration of justice. Without it, thousands of people would not have been brought to justice. It not only allows us to identify offenders and provide evidence to the courts, but is a vital safeguard against wrongful conviction and false allegations. When it comes to forensics, the stakes are high. The United Kingdom must have an efficient, working and credible model for forensic investigations.
I welcome the Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), to whom I pay tribute for his hard work and commitment in delivering his private Member’s Bill. However, it has not yet been fully implemented. He asked the Minister a written parliamentary question on 5 January, and the Minister’s answer was “as soon as possible”, so I would appreciate some kind of timescale to go with that. Considering that it took the Government nearly 20 months to respond to the Committee’s report, Members of the Opposition cannot be confident that the Government are committed or willing to prioritise these important matters.
One of the major issues affecting forensic science is the market and the availability of services. It is vital that the Government ensure there is sustainable capacity to meet the needs of the whole criminal justice system. The market does not work as it currently runs; private providers come in and out and some collapse, leading to delays and confusion as they pass on their work. New recruits are not trained properly, funding is unclear and unequal, and increased pressure leads to falling standards, errors and, potentially, miscarriages of justice. The police need costs to be as low as possible because their budgets have been cut, and everyone is having to make difficult decisions in a volatile and unsustainable market.
Such fragmentation of the sector does not just provide a regulatory headache; it has real-world impacts. This lack of certainty leads to criminal cases being put in jeopardy and emergency funding needing to be provided. Redundancies in the sector are also an issue. It is vital that the criminal justice system has the power to retain the very best scientists.
Forensic science is time sensitive. Courts rely on toxicology reports to determine whether an individual was driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol, but they cannot receive a report if the statutory time limit for the test has been passed. It cannot be right that charges are dropped because of a forensics problem. It is also the case that police forces are sometimes forced to ration and prioritise which cases they send to forensics. Forensics work must be done in a timely manner.
On digital forensics, we know that rape victims—really vulnerable people—might have their phones confiscated for months or even years, in the worst instances, while waiting for a forensics team to download and analyse their data. In the end-to-end rape review, the Government committed to leaving no victim without a phone for more than 24 hours in any circumstances. It would be good to understand a bit more about the progress towards that goal, particularly with the rape charge rate at a shocking 1.4%.
Similarly pressing are the issues of oversight and accreditation. Accreditation, as we have heard, provides an independent, impartial confirmation of technical competence. It surely forms an unavoidable plank in the plan to ensure public confidence in forensic science and the criminal justice system more widely. The importance of accreditation and compliance is indicated by the Randox case, which called into question the integrity of the laboratory’s toxicology results, and impacted 10,000 criminal cases. It was estimated that the re-testing of those samples might take between two and three years—even then, the degradation of samples would have rendered re-testing pointless. Randox did not have additional accreditation to the codes of practice and conduct for forensic science providers and practitioners in the criminal justice system.
The Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 requires a regulator to prepare a code of practice for forensic activities, which each forensic unit will have to comply with. It also included deadlines for units to achieve accreditation. As long ago as 2011, the Committee called for statutory powers to enforce compliance, with proper standards. These are yet to be introduced. The Committee called for a prohibition on the police using non-accredited laboratories to be included in the 2021 Act, as well as the mandate that all in-house police labs should be accredited within a year. The Minister disagreed, suggesting that these clauses would
“detract from the independence of the Regulator.”
It seems to me, however, that such regulations are critical, and might speak to some of the most concerning areas within the forensics sphere.
Regulation would ensure compliance with standards and deal with the fragmentary market. It would help solve the serious delays in digital forensics, which the Minister himself says remain a concern. It is a field now more important than ever, given the increasingly online nature of crime. Computer misuse has increased by 85%, hacking is up 161%, and 90% of cases now have a digital aspect.
Recent evidence given by Professor Tully shows that deadlines on accreditation of police laboratories continue to be missed. It seems impossible that the proposed October 2022 deadline for all forces to achieve accreditation on all sites will be met. The current situation sees victims relying on a forensics system that is not properly regulated, and reliant on a regulator with no proper enforcement powers. Time and again, the story seems to be of a Government failing to listen to the advice of experts, including that of the Science and Technology Committee.
At a time when just 6.5% of all crimes lead to a prosecution, the charge rate has halved and 1.3 million victims walked away from an investigation last year, public confidence in the justice system is at rock bottom. There can be no excuses. The Government say that tackling crime is a priority. They must put their money where their mouth is and stop the delays.
The use of biometrics has become an increasingly important and contentious issue, and it is only growing more so. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West attempted to include clauses related to biometrics in his private Member’s Bill, but the Government refused to support them, and they were removed. With new biometric systems being developed more rapidly than the police are able to keep up with, it is vital that the Government develop a proper evidence base for the use of these new technologies.
In his evidence to the Select Committee, Professor Wiles noted
“the continuing failure of the Home Office to update the crucial databases that hold both biometric data and general information about offenders, convictions, arrests and so on.”
The current legislation covering biometrics is a complicated patchwork quilt of Acts, difficult to grasp and to follow. We are clear that proper, fit-for-purpose regulation is needed. As in the forensics field, the stakes are high. It is crucial that the use of biometrics—undoubtedly powerful tools—does not infringe on civil liberties.
As we have heard, despite repeated assurances, the Government have still not delivered an automatic deletion system for custody images of unconvicted individuals whose data remains stored in a database. That is very worrying and, as the Biometrics Commissioner put it, unlawful. It cannot be right that an unconvicted individual would have to apply to have images of themselves deleted.
In the Conservative party manifesto for the last election, the Government said they would
“empower the police to safely use new technologies like biometrics and artificial intelligence”.
In evidence to the Committee, Baroness Williams noted that it was
“the legal framework that allows the police use”
of biometric technology that is both “necessary and proportionate” that is necessary in this sphere. There have so far been no legislative proposals from the Government on this front. I wonder when we might see a White Paper or similar setting out the Government’s plan to regulate this rapidly changing field.
The power of these new technologies is very great indeed. With regard to assets such as live facial recognition, voice recognition and gait analysis, Professor Wiles noted that the current framework
“has not kept up with the development of new biometrics; nor has the Government responded to judgments by both domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights about the inadequacy of that current framework.”
Even companies such as Microsoft—truly one of the great tech giants—support regulation.
When will the Minister act and commission a proper, UK-wide, independent review of the use and retention of biometrics and biometric data not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? Surely, with criminals utilising technology at a speed never seen before—I point to the sale of drugs online, which I have spoken about in this place before, as well as the criminal exploitation of children online—it is more important than ever that the Government get to grips with both forensics and biometrics, and absorb both into their plans to tackle crime.
The Minister believes that
“both of these biometrics and forensics are completely critical to the future success and…consent model of the police.”
We agree. There must be a clear, balanced and effective national decision-making structure for forensic science. This complex and complicated area deserves to be governed on a national basis, with policy decisions and implementation properly overseen. The Government must ensure that the 2021 Act is implemented, they must come up with a proper biometrics strategy, and they must deliver regulation, implementation and accreditation. That is crucial for the public and for victims.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
It is a great pleasure to appear before you, Dr Huq. I am grateful to you, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for securing this debate and giving up the chance to commune with their constituents on a one-line-Whip Thursday to consider this important matter.
Before I start, I want to make it clear that, as far as I am concerned, forensics, biometrics and the use of technology in policing—and, indeed, the confluence of all three—has been for the last decade, and will be for the foreseeable future, the most important development in the prevention, detection and prosecution of crime, and represents the possibility of a great leap forward for policing generally, not just in this country but across the world. It is my determination that we should harness the capability that these three strands give us as much as we possibly can within a framework of public trust. All our work at the Home Office, and indeed at the Ministry of Justice, is focused on that key objective.
While there has been criticism during the debate of the system that we currently have—I think my right hon. Friend called it a mixed picture, which is fair—I do not think we should beat ourselves up too much. We see significant results in the courts and detection day in, day out from our ability to wield forensics and biometrics—my right hon. Friend has seen a result in his constituency just recently—and we have some of the best forensic scientists in law enforcement in the world operating in this country, in the private sector and elsewhere.
However, as hon. Members have said, forensic science in particular has faced challenges in recent years. Constrained resources, allied with a huge growth in the volume of sources of evidence, have put a strain on the system, particularly where digital material is concerned. We have taken steps to address that. As I hope Members will know, we are investing £25.5 million this year and a further £25.5 million next year to strengthen forensic services for policing, particularly digital forensics. We have set up the forensic capability network, which is bringing much-needed stability to the commercial market through co-ordination activity. I will get the updated numbers for my right hon. Friend after the debate.
When it comes to quality, Dr Tully did enormous amounts of work in this area previously, with partners, to make sure that there were standards of collection, analysis and presentation of evidence. However, hon. Members are quite right to push for more, and that is why we were so pleased to support the Bill to put the regulator on a statutory footing that recently went through at the second attempt. Although the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) was successful this time, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) had a go in the previous Session, but unfortunately his Bill fell before the end of the Session. It has been a long-term objective of ours to get the regulator on to a statutory footing so that her or his standards are enforceable. We are working closely with the regulator to commence those new powers as quickly as possible. I do not have a date, but we will do it as fast as we can.
There is of course much more to do, which is why we are working closely with the regulator’s office, the Attorney General’s office and other partners to push out the forensic science reform programme, which, as I hope Members will know, is organised around four pillars. The first pillar is police capabilities. It is about ensuring that the police have all the skills they need through the Forensic Capability Network and the Transforming Forensics programme.
We want to ensure that there is proper regulation, hence the Forensic Science Regulator Act, which we think is a major landmark in levelling that playing field. Also, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, currently going through the Lords, strengthens the law to ensure a consistent approach, for example for requesting information from phones and other electronic devices, and it will ensure that in all cases requests to victims and witnesses are necessary, proportionate and made only as a last resort. Guidance on that will appear quite soon.
Among other things, the code of practice will address how information may be obtained using other, less obtrusive means, and how to ensure that agreement is freely given and that the device user’s rights are understood. It is a good example of the way we have to address specific developments in forensics within an overall framework of regulation and public trust. One of our priorities is to ensure that law enforcement has access to all the evidence necessary for its investigations and to put behind bars those criminals who need to be put there, so we will also look at the legal framework for suspects to make sure it stands the test of time, and enables timely, thorough and fair investigations.
The third pillar of our strategy is criminal justice system capabilities. We have developed a model to measure the impact that forensic disciplines can have on the investigation and prosecution of crime throughout the criminal justice system, to make sure that evidence is fairly and properly presented in court and that it is robust and, crucially, presented properly to the court’s practitioners. That strand of work will also increase the transparency of expert witnesses’ credentials and ensure that defendants have equal access to those experts. The Crown Prosecution Service and the Judicial Office, again with other partners, are also helping to oversee and deliver that important strand of work. I would be happy to provide my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells with more information on that, as he requested.
The fourth pillar, of course, is research and development. We want to ensure that we are ahead of the game, particularly on development in forensics, making sure that we direct our research and capabilities towards those strands of work where we believe there will be most value for policing, and to make sure that we are not constantly playing catch-up with new technology, as we perhaps have been in the past. For example, we have work under way to enable crime scene investigators to capture fingerprints digitally at the scene and then transmit them instantly to where they are needed, as well as research into innovative ways to locate and recover microscopic body fluids, advancements in DNA techniques, and the role forensic intelligence plays in high-harm crimes such as county line gangs and drug violence.
In addition, Transforming Forensics and the FCN held a research and innovation festival week in 2021, with significant policing and industry engagement. Guidance for research and development stakeholders to access funding opportunities has been produced, and discussions with UKRI to identify options for future dedicated funding for forensic science needs are ongoing.
Taken with the legislation to give the Forensic Science Regulator those statutory powers, I hope that our reform programme represents a joined-up and concerted effort to address the issues facing forensic science in England and Wales. As I said earlier, we absolutely recognise the critical importance that forensics plays in the criminal justice system, and we will continue to work closely with the sector and other relevant partners to drive progress across these disciplines.
Police use of biometrics, such as DNA and fingerprints, plays a huge part in protecting the public. Last year, DNA linked more than 21,000 people to crimes, including 588 to murders and 491 to rapes. But biometrics are not without their challenges, and a number of hon. Members have referred to the challenge of facial recognition technology. We recognise that we have an overriding responsibility to keep the public safe and, where we can, we should equip the police with the techniques to do that.
We do believe that facial recognition will improve, or has the possibility of improving, public safety very significantly. Generations of police officers have used photographs of people to identify suspects, and more recently CCTV images have been a vital tool in investigations. There are many examples where suspect images have been matched to wanted known individuals, ensuring that they cannot evade justice when they cross force boundaries. What is changing is the ability to use computers to match images with increasing confidence and at speed, as well as to combine technologies such as surveillance cameras and facial recognition to greater effect.
As I hope Members know, live facial recognition trials have produced a significant number of arrests; we are up to 70 now, including for a double count of rape, robbery and violence, false imprisonment, breach of a non-molestation order, and assault on the police. My favourite story is that of the concert by a particular rock band in Cardiff that had been plagued by dippers—pickpockets and others stealing phones and wallets. Just advertising and notifying people that facial recognition was being used at that concert meant that the number of offences fell to zero. Indeed, South Wales police, which has been at the forefront of adopting this technology, produces about 100 identifications a month through retrospective facial recognition, reducing identification time from 14 days sometimes to hours, which is obviously critical when a dangerous criminal is at large.
Carol Monaghan
I thank the Minister for his comments. The issue is not the use of these images—I think we all understand the importance of using the images— but their long-term storage. That is where people start having some difficulties.
Kit Malthouse
I will come on to that in a moment. I just want to address the question of a legal framework. There is already a comprehensive legal framework around the operation of this technology. As Members will know, it has been tested through the courts. The police have broad common-law powers around the detection and investigation of crimes, including the use of technology, but there are other bits of interlocking legislation that need to be borne in mind.
Obviously, there is PACE—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—the Human Rights Act 1998, the Equality Act 2010 and, indeed, data protection legislation, all of which gives a framework in which the police must operate. They are also subject to regulation through the Information Commissioner’s Office on the retention and use of data, and through a range of oversight bodies—happily, some external and some internal. As Members will know, a number of forces have, for example, ethics panels that are looking at the use of this technology. I will point Members who are interested to my appearance last week in front of the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which is looking at exactly this issue—the ethics and regulatory regime around the use of biometrics in particular.
We helped the police to appoint a chief scientific adviser, and forces have access to further support from their own ethics committees, as I said, as well as the Police Digital Service, the College of Policing and others. We have been working with the police to clarify the circumstances in which they can use live facial recognition and the categories of people they can look for, and I am told that the College of Policing will be publishing national guidance soon. That is a word that I have come to love in this job—“soon”, “soonest”, “shortly”.
It is of course an important part of our democratic process that people can raise and debate, including here in Parliament, legitimate concerns about police use of new technologies, and that legal challenges can be made in the courts, as has been referred to. Bridges v. South Wales police is an example.
I know that Members will recognise the importance of the police holding a bank of custody images for the potential identification of suspects and, often, witnesses. However, it is important that the public understand their rights in relation to the biometric data of all kinds that is held on them, and in particular their images. Last year, the National Police Chiefs’ Council established a new working group to develop further guidance on the retention of custody images. Through that group, the Home Office has worked with the police to issue new guidance stressing that people have the right to request deletion of their custody images. The police will communicate that guidance through various means to complement the existing information that is already available online and elsewhere. However, it remains the Government’s ambition to deliver an automatic deletion system for these images. We hope to do that during this Parliament, and I would be happy to supply the Science and Technology Committee with more details when I have them in due course.
Graham Stringer
I do not disagree with anything the Minister is saying, but would it not be easier if, when people are taken into the custody suite after an arrest and have their photograph taken, there were a simple sign next to the camera saying, “If you are found not guilty, or you are not guilty or the charge is not sustained, you have the right to have these images deleted”?
Kit Malthouse
I certainly think it would be a good idea to provide people with that information at as early an opportunity as we can. Whether they would read a notice on the wall at that moment of particular stress is something that I would have to think about, but it should be possible to provide them with that information as they exit the police station, having been released with no further action. That does not necessarily suppose that they are not going to be subject to further investigation at that point, but they can at least be informed of their right to request the deletion. Whether the police force complies will depend on other factors.
I told the Committee last June that we would make an announcement about further reforms to empower the police to use technologies while maintaining public trust. As I outlined earlier, we believe that a comprehensive legal framework and a range of regulatory and oversight bodies are in place, but we are always seeking improvements. We have already appointed one person to carry out the previously part-time roles of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner to reflect the increasing convergence of those technologies.
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport consulted last year on further consolidating biometrics oversight arrangements, recognising that the current arrangements are complex and confusing for the police and public alike, and that they potentially inhibit confident adoption of new technologies. We have also consulted on a power to create a code of practice to set out the principles for police adoption of new technologies, such as biometrics, to ensure greater consistency while maintaining the flexibility to allow the law to keep up with rapidly developing technology. We will respond to that and to the DCMS consultation in the spring.
As I hope I have outlined, the Government recognise right hon. and hon. Members’ aspiration that this should be a critical stream of work for the Home Office, and for policing more generally. We also recognise that there is the possibility to undermine public trust in the use of technology if we do not get the framework of accountability, supervision and regulation correct. For these technologies to be successful, they need to be successful in court, which requires standardisation and quality. We recognise that there are capacity issues that need to be addressed, and we are working with partners to fill those gaps. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells will take comfort, for example, from the fact that the Forensic Capability Network, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the private sector are, as we speak, working together on a workforce strategy to plug exactly the capability and capacity holes that he identified.
Finally, as I said at the start of my remarks, we believe that the use of forensics, biometrics and technology together, as they converge, presents an enormous prospect for a great leap forwards in our collective safety in this country—not just in the prosecution of crime, but in its prevention. The critical thing to remember about fighting crime is that the greatest deterrent to any crime being committed is the perception by the person who would commit it of their likelihood of being caught. The better we get at catching those people and putting them behind bars, the less likely they are to offend.
Greg Clark
Thank you, Dr Huq, for chairing this important debate. I hope that the contemplation by Members of your prospective arrest has not given you too much cause for alarm. God forbid that that should happen, but at least you know your rights when it comes to custody images as a result of the debate.
I thank the Minister for his response, and my colleagues for joining in the debate. Let me emphasise three points to the Minister. First, I was pleased that he recognised the importance of technology for the future. He is a serious individual with a long record—including as London’s Deputy Mayor for Policing—of making a difference in reducing crime and protecting victims. Of all the things that he can do in office, getting this right could have the greatest impact, not only in detecting crimes and securing convictions but in preventing crime in the first place, as he pointed out in his example from south Wales. I hope that he will give this matter the immediate priority that I think is necessary, without prejudice and without being hidebound by past decisions, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said.
My second point is about funding, which the hon. Members for Blackley and Broughton and for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) mentioned. The integrated review emphasised that our ambition is to be a world-leading figure in science and to deploy it to drive our national influence. Forensics, interest in which is exploding around the world, is an area in which we have had a leading position, but we cannot maintain that if we are losing money and putting up barriers to accessing research funding. I hope that the Minister will, with his new scientific adviser, look seriously at how we can correct that.
Thirdly, on the question of custody images, I am grateful for the Minister’s assurance that measures will be put in place by the end of this Parliament. In that and the other issues, my Committee will continue to take an interest—as I hope he will—and we look forward to making great progress, for the safety of all our citizens, during the remainder of this Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Nineteenth Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Session 2017-19, The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator, HC 1970, and the Government Response, Session 2019-21, HC 1319.
UK-Israel Trade Negotiations
(2 years, 3 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
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear a face covering when they are not speaking in the debate. This is in line with the current guidance that the House of Commons Commissioners would like to be enforced.
I also remind Members that they are asked by the House to take a covid lateral flow test before coming on to the estate. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room, where possible.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered UK and Israel trade negotiations.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, which I think is for the first time.
I declare my interest up front: I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Israel. In the last year, we released an excellent report, which I commend to my hon. Friend the Minister, on the health tech part of our industries. It is a very good read, which demonstrates the importance of Israel-UK negotiations and having them set up. Moreover, we are just about to release a report on research and innovation, which I also commend to him.
Israel and the UK’s partnership on the technology front extends to the fact, of course, that we have the Israel tech hub in the embassy in Tel Aviv. This morning, I was talking to the all-party parliamentary group on Romania, which wants to mirror that tech hub, demonstrating that the relationship between the UK and Israel is not only good for the UK and Israel but means that we can set up similar arrangements for like-minded countries across Europe and across the world. So I welcome the Government’s commitment to further strengthening the ties with Israel, which of course is a close friend and ally of the United Kingdom.
It is of course timely that we are having this debate, because I know that very shortly we will embark on new trade talks to enhance the UK’s trade relationship with Israel still further, which is extremely welcome.
I also thank the Backbench Business Committee, on which I sit, for granting this debate. I am not sure whether my sitting on the Committee had anything to do with it; I suspect that possibly it did. And I note that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is here in Westminster Hall today; he has a season ticket to the Backbench Business Committee, as well. [Laughter.]
Israel is not just the sole democracy in the middle east; it is also a true global high-tech start-up powerhouse, with huge prowess in the fields of high-tech energy, medical science, fintech and cyber-security, to name but a few areas. The UK is Israel’s largest trade partner in Europe and its third largest trade partner in the world. That gives us something to aim at; we want to be Israel’s largest trade partner in the world.
Given the strength of our relationship, it is perhaps little surprise that Israel was among the first countries with which the UK agreed a free trade agreement in principle, in January 2019, on our departure from the EU. After successive record-breaking years, UK-Israel trade has remained healthy, even during the pandemic, with an estimated value of £5 billion. Whether it involves pharmaceuticals, plastics, fintech or agri-tech, the UK-Israel trade relationship covers all our major industries and has a natural focus on the technology and services of the future. That is a key reason why there are boundless opportunities for improvements in the UK-Israel trade relationship. The signing of a strategic agreement with Israel last November was an important point in the process. In our ever-strengthening bilateral relationship, that is the next step towards negotiating the full post-Brexit trade deal with our friends in Israel that we want to see.
So we are natural trade partners. As progressive liberal democracies, our nations share the same values and the same commitment to the open and free market. Israel’s business community regards the UK as the gateway to Europe. The UK is an appealing market. We have a shared language, as an estimated 85% of Israelis speak English as their first language. We are also obviously in close proximity to Israel and have an enterprising business culture.
Israeli businesses hold the UK market in the highest regard. We have seen many of them achieve great success here. I will mention one or two of them shortly. Israel’s tech ecosystem does not just provide economic benefits to our two great nations. Every day, Israeli businesses will be enriching and improving the lives of British citizens and making them healthier. A cab driver or parent on the school run uses Israeli sat-nav app Waze to efficiently complete their journey. A water engineer will be alerted to a leak in the network by Takadu, a start-up based in Tel Aviv. The cherry tomatoes that a shopper buys in the local supermarket are an invention from Israel. I could go on. Many constituents of mine are issued generic prescription drugs from their local GP surgery. These drugs are manufactured by Israeli pharmaceutical giant Teva, which produces an extraordinary one in six prescription drugs used in the NHS. That fails to scratch even the surface of Israeli companies operating in the UK.
There are 500 Israeli companies operating in the UK, employing thousands of our constituents. A number of UK companies have major operations in Israel, including Barclays, Rolls-Royce, GlaxoSmithKline and Unilever. Rolls-Royce was responsible for the UK’s largest ever export deal to Israel back in 2016 when it signed a £1 billion agreement with Israeli airline El Al to provide Trent 1000 engines for El Al’s new fleet of Dreamliner aircraft. A British visitor to Israel could not fail to notice the ever-growing number of UK-manufactured cars in the Jewish state.
In terms of high tech, the rapid expansion of UK-Israel trade over the last decade has closely followed Israel’s emergence as one of the world’s leaders in high tech. Israel is now home to the highest density of start-ups anywhere in the world. That impressed me, because I thought India was. Clearly, Israel is more dense in that respect. It deservedly earns its title as the start-up nation. It is also home to the world’s major technology powerhouses, including Google, Microsoft, Intel and Motorola. I have had the privilege of visiting Israel on a number of occasions with the Conservative Friends of Israel, and the dynamism and forward-thinking nature of its high-tech sector and young entrepreneurs is palpable. I particularly remember visiting an early electrical vehicle pioneer back in 2011. Remember 2011? That was 11 years ago. As is often the case, the Israeli company was many years ahead of the market. The only thing holding it back was battery technology at the time.
Israel has achieved this success with intellectual power in the face of geographic and geo-political disadvantages, conflict and a lack of natural resources. Another reason behind Israel’s success story is that the country is an investor in research and development, spending as much as 4.9% of its GDP on R&D in 2018. That is more than double that of the UK—something else we should think about. It offers us very serious food for thought.
Increasing trade with Israel has been a long-standing UK objective. The UK-Israel tech hub, which was established at the British embassy in 2011, was the first of its kind to promote partnerships in technology and innovation between the UK and Israel. It has successfully generated hundreds of tech partnerships between the UK and Israel and is so far worth more than £85 million. It has led to the additional tech hubs in India, Indonesia, Kenya, South Africa, Nigeria, Brazil and soon Romania.
Brexit has presented us with an exciting opportunity to negotiate a bespoke UK-Israel free trade agreement. Our two nations are closer than ever and share the same values and outlook on international trade. There are endless possibilities for the UK and Israel to work together to become the world’s leading tech centres. I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to be ambitious in the forthcoming negotiations. The trade continuity agreement, which was signed in February 2019, ensured the continuation of the trade terms covered by the EU-Israel association agreement. That should be the bare minimum we seek to negotiate in the new UK-Israel trade deal.
The International Trade Secretary said last month that her Department would be opening a public consultation on this important free trade agreement this January. We do not have long to go, so I am looking to the Minister, and I do not want to hear “soon” as an answer. Given the importance of the UK-Israel bilateral deal, I wonder whether the Minister can shed some light on the commencement date. I very much hope that the starting gun will be fired in the forthcoming days.
I know many colleagues in this place are looking forward to the UK hosting a joint innovation summit with Israel in March this year, but I wonder whether the Secretary of State has any plans to visit Israel in the near future to see for herself the many trade opportunities emerging from this tech powerhouse. I trust that she will visit and that that can kick off the negotiations properly.
My hon. Friend the Minister has spoken of the UK’s desire to expand opportunities in financial services, infrastructure and technology. Can he provide an update on the progress of these sector-specific ambitions?
The UK and Israel can boast the world’s two most successful covid-19 vaccination programmes, which is a source of great personal pride to both countries. Our beloved NHS has delivered a vaccination programme at a speed and scale that is truly the envy of the world. Israel’s digitalised healthcare system played an instrumental role in that success. The Department for International Trade has previously expressed the desire to seek a trade deal with a chapter focused on advanced digital data and technology, including med-tech. Can my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that that remains the plan? What discussions has he had with his counterpart in Israel on the subject?
Israel’s success in R&D is commendable. Will the Minister consider using free trade negotiations to explore a binational research and development programme to the mutual benefit of both countries? Israel has such a programme in place with the United States, known as BIRD—Israel-US Binational Industrial Research and Development—and cumulative sales of products co-developed by Israeli and American companies through BIRD have exceeded $10 billion. Given the immediate strategic challenge posed by disruptive actors on the international stage, it is more important than ever that we work with trusted allies to produce the technologies of the future.
As we move to deliver on our net zero commitments, I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to work closely with Israel. The country has been known as the superpower of sustainability. While we will not be able to recreate here the solar tower that harnesses Negev sunshine to generate electricity, we can certainly learn much from Israel’s world-leading water reuse programme to avoid future droughts. The UK and Israel boast sector-leading green-tech and agri-tech start-ups, and there are many opportunities to expand on that.
With this ambition in mind, I call on the Minister to seize the opportunity of the historic Abraham accords, which have ushered in a ground-breaking new chapter for peace in the middle east, between Israel and her neighbours in Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. While the accords have been in effect for less than two years, they have already had a seismic effect on the region in terms of trade and investment, which has rapidly expanded.
The breakthrough water-for-energy deal between Jordan and Israel, brokered by the UAE, demonstrates that the peace is far-reaching and gives us, tentatively, an opportunity for proper peace in the middle east. I hope the UK will actively consider the ways in which we can support these new links, and use our own strong relationships in the region to further build on the Abraham accords.
There are challenges. The Government have prioritised the relationship with Israel and have put in place frameworks to stimulate collaboration, but there is much more we can do to ensure that Israeli companies make the UK their natural first stop internationally to trial and scale their products.
I had the pleasure of releasing “A shot in the arm: Israel and UK healthtech innovation”, a report from the all-party Britain-Israel parliamentary group and UK Israel Business. The report identified several impediments that face Israeli health-tech companies seeking to enter the UK market. Many of the proposals would also work across different sectors. For example, the report recommends creating new UK-based landing pads to assist Israeli companies touching down in the United Kingdom, which should include advice on how best to position their value proposition and achieve adoption at pace and scale in the UK.
Another challenge facing Israeli start-ups is the constraints imposed by short-term visas. We contend that as part of the Israel-UK landing pad, start-ups selected and incubated through the scheme should be automatically awarded a start-up visa as part of the scheme. A visa awarded to landing pad companies would be time-bound by the landing pad programme horizon—a scheme that already takes into account other critical factors such as capital requirements, pilot testing and scale horizons. Will the Minister take the time to read the report, consider its recommendations and, I hope, act upon them?
While there is much to celebrate in our burgeoning trade relationship with Israel, it would be remiss of me not to quickly touch on the so-called Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement—or BDS, as it is more commonly known. Simply put, BDS is a harmful, politically-motivated campaign that seeks to delegitimise Israel. BDS does nothing to advance the Palestinian cause; in actuality, it is anti-peace. I applaud the Government for their rejection of BDS and their clear commitment to ever-greater trade with Israel.
The fact that many of those targeting Israel with economic boycotts also actively seek to extend their harmful boycotts to those in the cultural and educational spheres says everything we need to know. It is unthinkable to me that anyone could seek to minimise collaboration between UK and Israeli scientists tackling some of the greatest health challenges facing our societies, such as Alzheimer’s, covid-19 and Parkinson’s disease.
It is deeply regrettable that Ben & Jerry’s—the ice cream makers owned by British company Unilever—has engaged in its own recent boycott of Israel; the controversial move rightly provoked strong condemnation. I call on Unilever to challenge such harmful measures.
The Government’s forthcoming legislation to stop public bodies across the UK discriminating on grounds of country and territory of origin must feature provisions to prevent procurement policy being used as a tool of foreign policy or an attempt to regulate international trade. Legislating on this important manifesto commitment will be warmly welcomed by many of my constituents, and I call on the Minister to work closely with colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to counter discriminatory policies that are harmful not only to community cohesion here in the UK but to the UK’s trade interests and foreign policy goals. I commend the UK Government’s response to BDS, which has been to seek ever-closer economic relations with Israel. Now is the time to go one step further and ensure that the principles of fairness and non-discrimination are enshrined at the heart of the UK’s public procurement regime.
Having experienced a decade of record-breaking growth in trade, the United Kingdom and Israel are natural partners across a wide range of innovative fields—from financial to agricultural technology, spanning government, the private sector and higher education. We therefore have before us an invaluable opportunity to reshape our trading relationship for the future. The UK-Israel trade deal is much anticipated for its many important economic benefits, but it also presents an opportunity for the UK to expand its ever-tightening relationship with a close ally. Given Israel’s status as a world-leading tech power, it is important for the UK to make the most of the many advantages of the trade deal by taking an ambitious approach to trade negotiations.
Done right, this deal could serve as a model for UK partnerships with other advanced, innovation-intensive states, including South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan. My colleagues and I stand ready to support work on an enhanced trade agreement. I hope that the Minister can assure me and my hon. Friends that the call for input is about to begin, and that we can look forward to an excellent free trade deal with our friends in Israel.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, and to be in your company—I want to have that on the record. We are close friends and colleagues, having come into this House at the same time.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on setting the scene. We missed him this morning at International Trade questions. I figured if he was not there, something must be seriously wrong, but he was there later on—he was alright. His question was still asked—I do not know how he did that. He is always very helpful to me when I go to the Backbench Business Committee to ask for a debate. I am not aware of any occasions—touch wood—when I have been refused a debate by the Backbench Business Committee, and the debates have always been on topical issues, so it is good to have them. Today’s issue is very close to my heart, and the hon. Gentleman outlined it incredibly well.
I see that the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) has a debate scheduled for Westminster Hall under a slightly different topic heading; we will probably repeat the points that we have addressed today. If God spares me until then, I will be here at 9.30 on Wednesday morning to support the hon. Gentleman in the debate, as will others.
The hon. Member for Harrow East often raises the importance of securing a trade deal with Israel, and I agree. In 2017, Israel was voted the fifth most innovative country in terms of technology and cyber-security. There is absolutely no doubt that we need to increase our co-operation, business and economic growth alongside Israel, so that both countries can benefit. It is imperative that we continue to improve trade relations with our friends and partners.
When I was at the Northern Ireland Assembly—I was there for 12 years—I was a member of the Northern Ireland Friends of Israel group. When I came here, I continued that relationship with the Friends of Israel. I am keen to see relations between the United Kingdom and Israel continuing and, indeed, increasing. The hon. Member for Harrow East said that, too. We should appreciate that that is for everyone’s benefit. Figures from the year 2017 show that UK exports to Israel were £2.3 billion, making it the UK’s 42nd largest export market—accounting for 0.4% of all UK exports. UK imports from Israel were £1.6 billion, making it the UK’s 47th largest import source, accounting for 0.3% of all UK imports. Most recent figures from 2020 also show that the UK had bilateral trade with Israel amounting to £5.1 billion. It is clear that we have a good relationship, but we always want to do better; that is the reason for this debate. It is what the hon. Member for Harrow East is looking for.
There is certainly evidence that there is a need for progressive trade relations with Israel in regards to security—that is an important factor for us all and a key one for me. The Foreign Secretary stated back in November, along with her Israeli Counterpart, that,
“there is a need for a new strategic plan for the next decade, spanning cyber, tech, trade and defence.”
The opportunities are enormous. It was also mentioned that the two countries would work night and day, 24/7, to prevent the Iranian regime from ever becoming a nuclear power. That would be to the benefit of everyone, and to the benefit of world peace, not just the UK and Israel. That is brilliant and we should all try and achieve that. Even the couple of Members here who do not have active participation with Israel should want to make sure the Iran does not achieve nuclear power.
It was former Secretary of State William Hague who labelled science and business ties
“one of the cornerstones of the relationship between Israel and the UK.”
The strategic agreement signed with Israel is the starting post for a series of activities that will deepen our trading relationship. I understand a public consultation on our enhanced bilateral free trade agreement will be opened this month, and there will be further trade strategies in March, as the hon. Member for Harrow East said. It is crucial that we do all we can now to progress this trading relationship. It is important to remember that our trade connections help to strengthen our relationships not only with Israel, but with the rest of the world. It is only right that trade connections benefit every one of us, and Israel is a key friend and trading relationship.
The Minister says that there will be a joint innovation strategy. With that in mind, will there be discussions with Education Ministers? There is the possibility that we can do things in that area, such as combining specialised research through our universities. We have been very good at that with other countries, so maybe the Minister could tell us what could be done in relation to that with Israel.
Israel has proven successful through some of the world’s leading companies, such as Teva Pharmaceuticals, which is worth over £57 million, and computer specialist Intel, which is worth over £27 million. Combined, both of those companies employ over 53,000 people. In addition, UK exports to Israel amounted to £2.6 billion in the four quarters to the end of 2021, which represents a slight decrease—I find that hard to comprehend, but it was probably due to the pandemic and other factors. Could the Minister give us an explanation of why there was a small decrease? Total UK imports from Israel amounted to £9.1 billion at the end of 2020, which was also a decrease of 10.8% from 2021. Again, was the pandemic the reason for that? If it was, then we know that those numbers can only go one way, which is upwards. We must do all we can to ensure that those figures do not decrease any further. I am sure the Minister will respond to that point.
Israel was the UK’s 40th largest trading partner at the end of 2020. I encourage the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to do all it can to ensure that we continue to show interest through trade. I understand that trading figures may have decreased due to the covid-19 pandemic, but it is essential that we do not continue to let this become a problem. Our economy is essential to our success, for jobs and for the benefit of all of us in the UK, Israel and, of course, the world.
I understand that other Members want to speak, so I will conclude my remarks. It is crucial that we prioritise our trading links with other countries. More discussion must take place between the Minister and his counterparts to expand our products’ scope, and how we can build on what we have and perhaps even develop it more. When it comes to trade deals, our Government have been very successful so far, so we look to see where we are with Israel. We all welcome the prospect of an enhanced trade deal with Israel, as well as strong support from UK Export Finance to help finance exports into Israel. With that in mind, I very much support what the hon. Member for Harrow East has said, and look forward to the Minister’s response. It is good to see him in his place: he has been missing for a while, but wherever he has been, it is good to see him back.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
The Minister will be able to explain those sleepless nights very soon.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
As always, Mr Paisley, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this important and timely debate. The bilateral relationship between the UK and Israel runs deep, from intelligence sharing and security co-operation to our trade ties, which have flourished over many years. For example, the Britain-Israel research and academic exchange partnership has brought together scientists from both countries to tackle some of the world’s most challenging medical conditions and diseases, including cardiovascular and liver disease, diabetes and Parkinson’s. That cutting-edge research and co-operation benefits citizens in the UK, Israel, and further afield.
Israeli innovations benefit the British people, and our close partnership keeps us all safe. I will take this opportunity to reflect on those ties in my contribution today, and I urge the Minister to explore further areas for collaboration in our ongoing trade negotiations with Israel. To list a few examples, we have the Israeli pharmaceutical company Teva, which has been mentioned, and which is a leading provider of medicines to the NHS. With over 200 Teva tablets or capsules taken on average by patients in the UK every second, not only does Teva improve the health of millions of people in this country every day, but it employs hundreds of British workers at sites across our country. There is also the Israeli-designed PillCam, a capsule camera that patients swallow painlessly to get checked for cancer that is currently being trialled across the NHS, and the Israeli-developed phone app that reads the results of urine tests by using AI and colour metric analysis, sharing the results instantly with the individual’s GP practice. These home testing kits, which detect early stage chronic kidney disease, have already started shipping to half a million UK patients.
The brave men and women of our armed forces also benefit greatly from Israeli technology, which protects our soldiers on the battlefield. Israeli-developed virtual reality training scenarios have prepared British soldiers for a range of hostile battle situations, and Israeli intelligence-collecting drones help to keep our troops safe. The list goes on. However, there remain those who seek to dismantle our close ties with Israel and call for a trade embargo, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. Boycott campaigns that seek to undermine this important cooperation, and to make peace harder to achieve, must be opposed. Boycotts of Israel harm the Israeli and Palestinian people, and they threaten our close collaboration in defence, science and medicine. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to stopping public bodies from imposing needless boycotts on foreign countries. All too often, these aggressive campaigns target the state of Israel and single out the world’s only Jewish state for criticism.
I am sure that the Minister will reiterate the importance of our close ties with Israel in his remarks. I urge him to do everything possible to oppose needless boycotts and sanctions against Israel, including introducing the legislation committed in the manifesto on which we were both elected, and I urge him to continue working to further strengthen the bilateral relationship between Israel and the United Kingdom.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. It is an equal pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore), who delivered a powerful speech that I entirely endorse, particularly those parts towards the end of his remarks about the dangerous nature of those who seek to boycott Israel in trade, which has a knock-on impact on peace, people’s jobs and prosperity. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate and on setting out the case so eloquently and powerfully at the start of it. The facts and case studies that he outlined speak for themselves.
Israel has cemented itself as a major economic partner of our United Kingdom and is on an upward trajectory, and a more extensive trade deal between two of the world’s most technologically advanced economies will reap enormous benefits for both nations as well as the wider world. We have heard how omnipresent Israeli-made technology is in our day-to-day lives in the United Kingdom, and I was interested to learn recently that many of the banking transactions made by customers online or via smartphones are protected by Israeli-made software running in the background. From digital printers to USB sticks—they might seem like old hat now—and car safety cameras, Israelis have played a huge role in the rapid advancement of our digital economy and digital society in recent decades. Tesco recently opened its first fully autonomous store in London after partnering with the Israeli company Trigo, which uses computer vision technology and advanced artificial intelligence algorithms to enable shoppers to choose their items and leave without having to stop at the tills, providing a seamless experience and saving time. I look forward to visiting Israel in the near future to see for myself more of the exciting technologies and the companies, scientists and innovators behind them.
Now that we are free of the European Union, the opportunity afforded to us to become a proud free-trading nation, with one of the world’s largest and most forward-thinking economies, must not be wasted. I join hon. Members of different parties who have spoken in the debate—I notice that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has left the room, but I endorse his speech as well—in urging the Government to make concerted efforts to secure the much-anticipated deal with Israel as early as time affords.
Tourism should be an important consideration for the trade talks ahead. Prior to the pandemic, Israel was establishing itself as a go-to destination for many Brits, and the UK remains ever popular with tourists from Israel. Travel between the countries has become so popular in recent years that we have seen the likes of Virgin Atlantic open a route, Wizz Air about to expand its number of flights to Israel, and Israel become one of easyJet’s busiest routes.
I join other speakers in welcoming the important work of the UK-Israel tech hub, which connects businesses in both countries, but there is so much more that can be done to support British companies seeking to increase their presence in Israel. As I conclude my remarks, I ask the Minister what action he is taking to explore those further ways to expand this market and to support British businesses in my constituency and beyond to partner with Israeli companies. I am extremely optimistic about this unique opportunity for our two countries to negotiate an ambitious and wider free trade agreement that looks to the future. I look forward to hearing from the Minister when he expects the consultation to begin.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. It is custom and practice in a Westminster Hall debate to pay tribute to the hon. Member who proposed the debate, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his promotion of his UK-Israel trade negotiations debate. However, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, I too had a debate on UK trade with Israel, hence the word “negotiations” not being part of my title. I have to disappoint the hon. Member by saying that I have decided there is no need for my debate to go forward, and I can only wish that he is able to have a more leisurely breakfast next Wednesday. Indeed, other hon. Members may decide to go for an early morning run instead of coming to hear probably the same speech that I will give now.
On a serious note, I welcome the growing collaboration between our two countries, including the new UK-Israel bilateral road map, which will extend and deepen our relationship over the next decade. In recent years, the UK Government have worked to build on our existing ties with Israel, securing a multitude of agreements in cyber-security, academia and medicine, as well as Israeli investment bringing more jobs to the United Kingdom. Israelis see the United Kingdom as an ideal place to trade, as they are attracted by our culture, language and institutions.
I was pleased to see the former International Trade Secretary visit Israel last year for meetings to discuss the forthcoming trade agreement and to increase bilateral ties. Many people in the Chamber have visited Israel and I look forward to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) being able to visit the country. Colleagues who have travelled to Israel will no doubt agree that visiting the start-up nation is an eye-opening experience. I repeat the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East for the current Secretary of State to visit Israel in the near future.
The relationship between the United Kingdom and Israel is one that dates back to Israel’s creation, but it has certainly accelerated at a remarkable rate in the last decade. I hope that, in some small way, I have played my part in that. In 2013, I asked David Cameron on the Floor of the House of Commons if he would be the first serving British Prime Minister to visit the country, and I was very pleased that the following year he did so, and I was able to accompany him on that visit. It was a great opportunity for him to not only see the workings of the country, its culture and its history, but his remarks in the Knesset were equally prescient. There was a small dispute going on between Members and he said, on this particular Wednesday afternoon, that it was quieter than he would usually experience in the House of Commons.
While others may reflect on the expansion of Israel’s tech scene, it is important to note that this Conservative Government and those of the last 11 years have made Israel a real strategic priority. The UK’s high regard for Israel was evidenced by the fact that it was one of the first countries to agree a free trade deal in principle following the referendum. The ever-strengthening trade relationship is to be welcomed, and it has clearly paid dividends, with over 500 Israeli companies operating in the United Kingdom. Thousands of people, including many in my own constituency of Hendon, are directly benefiting from that employment. Those companies are creating wealth and encouraging growth between our two countries.
Importantly, strong ties are also being forged between our two countries by non-governmental organisations in both the UK and Israel. Accordingly, I pay tribute to UK Israel Business and the Israel British Chamber of Commerce, which in 2017 was recognised with an award of excellence by the Council of British Chambers of Commerce in Europe. It is worth noting that that was the first time that an Israeli chamber of commerce has won such an award from a European organisation.
Given the scientific and engineering excellence of our two countries, I repeat the calls for the Minister to explore establishing bilateral centres and incubators to enable British and Israeli companies and scientists to come together and tackle the great challenges of the day. One of those issues may be covid, which we are now passing by, but there are many more that we can work on. A trade deal will enable us to work jointly to tackle climate change, strengthen cyber-security against some of the malign actors that have been mentioned—mainly Iran—and produce the next generation of med-tech, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) mentioned, to keep us all healthier and improve our wellbeing. All that would come of a good trade deal.
There are several barriers to address, however, before we can take advantage of the opportunity before us. To better facilitate the important opportunities that I have outlined, I encourage the Minister to review visa and entry requirements to enable Israelis to work more easily in the UK. In my humble opinion, the Minister should also review the existing regulations, such as on opening a bank account, which can make it difficult for Israelis to start businesses in the UK. There is also an opportunity to consider tax tariffs on a range of goods, including food and beverages and medicines. I am sure the Minister also recognises the importance of reaching an agreeable position on data protection matters so that organisations are not unduly burdened—although I welcome the fact that the UK has deemed Israel one of the countries that provides adequate levels of data protection.
I will make two points further to those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. First, Israel spends about 5% of its gross domestic product on research and development, which is more than most developing countries around the world. However, there is large, untapped potential for UK investment in research and development in Israel. Does the Minister agree that there is more work to be done in that area? It would be a great opportunity for people in this country to benefit financially.
Secondly, boycotts do not work—I am sure the Minister can accept that. When the SodaStream factory in the west bank was forced to close following pressure from the BDS movement, more than 500 Palestinians lost their jobs. Those people were all in employment, with a wage and a standard of living higher than people in other employment in that part of Israel. All that does is force those Palestinian people into the arms of Hamas and Hezbollah. We all want peace and security in the middle east—we certainly want a two-state solution—but the divisive actions of the BDS movement will not allow that to happen. Will the Minister bring forward as soon as possible legislation to prevent such divisive activities in the UK?
Although it is not strictly the subject of this debate, I also think it is important that the Government restate their commitment to the religious practice of shechita, which is very important to my constituents and which contributes to the economy of both the UK and Israel.
My constituents and I are fully supportive of the Government in their ambition to secure a comprehensive trade deal with Israel, and we look forward to the formal process beginning in earnest in the coming days. I am sure that the Minister has listened closely to what colleagues have said and that he will take this opportunity to ramp up and lead the way on trade deals. Israel would certainly be a good place to start.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate. He brought a significant amount of knowledge to the House. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke passionately, as he always does. The hon. Members for Southport (Damien Moore) and for Buckingham (Greg Smith) both gave interesting contributions, providing a lot of food for thought. It was a delight to hear from the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord); I was due to speak in his debate next week, but I appreciated the opportunity to hear his contribution today.
The UK and Israel have only recently signed a strategic plan that is entirely devoid of human rights demands on Israel, and it is a real concern that this free trade deal will be similar. The UK Government will open a call for input on an enhanced bilateral free trade agreement with Israel this year, and the Scottish Government will provide a submission. However, there is no substitute for ongoing, meaningful engagement with Scottish Government officials on FTA negotiation matters—something that was not there in the talks with New Zealand and Australia.
We in the SNP are neither anti-trade nor anti-free trade. We recognise that there are many avenues for more trade co-operation, such as in the spaces of digital, data, science and technology.
Once we gain independence, the SNP will seek for Scotland to rejoin the EU. In doing so, it would rejoin the EU’s deal with Israel. That deal, of course, makes it categorically clear that trade with the Occupied Palestinian Territories should not be treated as if it were trade with Israel.
Until Scotland gains her independence, we in the SNP urge the UK Government in the strongest possible terms to use every opportunity—indeed, this rare opportunity of trade negotiations—to end the persecution of the Palestinian people. As with any negotiation, there are trade-offs, but turning a blind eye to persecution should not be one of them. It must remain a priority for the UK Government, and a red line throughout every single stage of the negotiations. If human rights demands are not met, a free trade deal must come off the table. A life free from persecution and, to quote Human Rights Watch, “apartheid conditions”, and a decent standard of living—something we all deserve as human beings—are worth much more than a few tariff reductions between two already incredibly rich countries.
There is no doubt that trade relationships can lead to wider relationships and can often be used as a way of influencing—for good and sometimes for ill—the actions of other countries and Governments. The safety of the Palestinian people and their freedom from an illegal occupation should be a condition for any UK-Israeli free trade deal. Human rights concerns must be consistently raised throughout every stage, including at the inaugural UK-Israel joint committee to be held in the UK this year and the joint UK-Israel innovation summit in March. If previous free trade deals are anything to go by, it is no surprise that the Department for International Trade has not yet published its objectives and scoping assessments for this set of negotiations. I would appreciate clarification from the Minister on when they will be available.
Israel accounts for much less than 1% of UK exports. Anything it does will not fix the huge absence of trade caused by Brexit, which, I remind the House, Scotland did not vote for. The UK’s total bilateral trade relationship with Israel stood at £5 billion in 2020. In comparison, UK exports to the EU were £251 billion, representing 42% of all UK exports. We could increase exports to Israel by a factor of 10 and it would still be only a relatively minor trading partner compared with the EU and others. This deal will not compensate for what we have lost because of Brexit.
In 2019, Scottish exports were growing consistently in all directions—to the rest of the UK, the EU and the rest of the world. We now have clear evidence that that is no longer the case, as Scottish goods exports fell by 25% in the year to June 2021, compared with the equivalent period in 2019-20.
An industry that has a significant number of farmers contributing to it, including in my constituency, is the food and drinks industry. House of Commons research found that Brexit is costing the industry £62 million a week. That is £62 million a week that farmers and producers cannot afford to lose, but I do not remember seeing that figure on the side of a bus.
We seek assurances that nothing will be done to land a deal with Israel that will make it easier for goods that have been produced in the illegally occupied territories to be marked, sold and exported as produce of Israel. These goods should be regarded as the proceeds of crime. We know that a free trade deal solely benefiting Israeli products and not products that have been produced in illegally occupied territories will reduce the competitiveness of Palestinian produce, put Palestinian producers at a disadvantage and potentially distort the comparative prices of similar goods from both sides of the wire fence for UK consumers.
I would therefore appreciate clarification from the Minister on two points. First, so that customers across the four nations can decide for themselves where to buy from, we seek assurances that the Department for International Trade will follow a policy of non-divergence from our European partners when it comes to labelling. The possible free trade deal must include clauses that mandate accurate labelling of Israeli goods and settlement goods, so as not to mislead the consumer.
Secondly, we urge the Department to engage in every effort to improve the competitiveness of Palestinian products and the trade links between the UK and the occupied territories. That should include redoubling diplomatic efforts to see the end of the blockade of the Gaza strip—an embargo that covers trade. It should also include looking at the merits of advising UK businesses against trading with illegal settlements, as a disincentive to Israeli settlement-building in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It must be remembered that aid cuts by the Conservative Government have hit the occupied territories hard and badly impacted livelihoods, and they are hampering trade growth. Improving trade with Palestine is also a way out of poverty.
I will make a final point about the UK arms trade with Israel. Over the last three years, £76 million of arms sales have been exported to Israel. The Minister must categorically state today that offensive arms and small weapons—the weapons most commonly used against civilians—will be outside the free trade agreement negotiations.
Ultimately, what cannot happen is that these trade negotiations decouple Israel’s behaviour in the occupied territories—behaviour that is categorically illegal under international law.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate. I hope he will pass on our thanks to his fellow members of the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) for graciously saying that we do not all have to come back here again next Wednesday morning. Otherwise, I would be reusing, rather than recycling, my speech. I also thank the other speakers we have heard so far, and I will try to refer to them all during my speech. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I have previously visited Jerusalem, the west bank and the Knesset as part of a parliamentary delegation.
Successive Israeli leaders, from Golda Meir to Yitzhak Rabin, were proud members of the Israeli Labour party and proud socialists. In the case of Yitzhak Rabin, he was murdered because of his historic work and commitment to peace through the Oslo accord. The British Labour party has strong and historic links with Israel through the Israeli Labour party.
It is in that spirit that we welcome and support increasing and improving the UK’s trade links with Israel. Of course, we welcome any trade deals that support jobs here in the UK and British businesses. That is why our Government should be taking advantage of trade with countries such as Israel—to ensure that UK exporters and businesses can do well and that British business can bounce back after the pandemic.
Speakers today have pointed out that the UK and Israel are two of the world’s most high-tech economies. That is surely a benefit, and a key issue, as speakers have said, in future negotiations with Israel.
The total trade in goods and services with Israel was worth £4.6 billion in the last available figures. I thought that Israel was the UK’s 40th largest partner, but the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has temporarily left the room, said it was 42nd. Either way, as the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar), the SNP Front-Bench spokesperson, said, this is a proportionately small amount of the UK’s total trade. Let us get these things in proportion.
UK exports to Israel are, however, worth more than £2 billion and support about 37,000 jobs in the UK, including, as speakers have said, many in skilled manufacturing industries, such as the car industry, but also technology, health-tech, security, data and so on. According to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, 6,600 VAT-registered businesses currently export goods to Israel. I would welcome the Minister’s providing further information about what targets the Government want to reach for the number of businesses exporting to Israel in the future. I am talking about both the level of jobs and the level of investment. Is that a target for any future trade negotiations? There are also a number of important areas where Israel provides crucial imports for consumers here in the UK. That is especially the case, as others have said, in relation to pharmaceuticals and companies such as Teva, whose largest customer is of course the NHS.
There are other business links. The hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned the tech hub run through the UK embassy and the importance of technology and data in the economy. The hon. Member for Southport (Damien Moore) told us about the trials of the very interesting camera that people swallow for cancer checks and about VR training. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) mentioned digital security, which I did not know about. It is very important for any of us—all of us—who have bank accounts and do our banking online and on our phones. He also mentioned tourism, which is of course an important source of business for Israel, and of course for Palestine, because in and around Jerusalem we have the holiest sites for the three largest monotheistic religions in the world. Also, the world centre for the Baha’i faith is in Haifa, I think.
Additionally, more than 300 Israeli high-tech companies have bases in the UK, with 100 of those having been established in the last decade. Those firms bring jobs and investment to the UK. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what steps the Government are taking to support our tech industry and to build strong partnerships between UK and Israeli tech hubs.
The Government have recently signed a further deal with Israel, which builds off the continuity FTA signed in 2019. This “road map” commits to further action around issues ranging from cyber-security to improving business links through the UK-Israel innovation summit in March of this year. We welcome these steps and hope that our Government continue to work with the Israeli Government on these important bilateral issues. The memorandum of understanding says that the UK and Israel will work on the
“development of a new, higher ambition free trade agreement.”
I look forward to hearing more details from the Minister about this and the benefits it could bring to so many sectors of our economy in the UK. We want trade deals that support well-paid and skilled jobs here, and we will support those that do so, as an Israel trade deal would.
It is equally important, however, that the Government ensure that human rights issues are considered and addressed when any trade deal is being struck. Trade should not happen in a vacuum, and British values are important in our trade deals. Around the world there has been a worrying pattern of the Government seeming to adopt an “any deal will do” approach, with key issues being jettisoned and ignored. We have already seen evidence of this in the Government’s recent deal with Australia, with British farmers thrown under the bus. I am extremely concerned that in future negotiations, such as those with the Gulf Council, human rights and rule of law issues could be cast aside. The Minister for Trade Policy did not take the opportunity this morning to answer my question about the Gulf Council deal.
The SNP Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts, made a number of key points about human rights and illegal settlements. Illegal settlements are possibly the top human rights issue, and they are in breach of international law. We have seen their continued expansion at a rapidly increasing pace, especially since the start of the Trump Administration in the US. Our Government must object in the strongest possible terms in all relevant forums, not least in trade negotiations, to the expansion of illegal settlements.
We know that settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory are illegal in international law, and that includes settlements in East Jerusalem, as well as in the west bank. United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 states that
“the establishment…of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967…has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law”.
These settlements entrench divisions, and I know from meeting Palestinians when I visited the west bank that these settlements make a just and lasting peace deal even harder to achieve. I was told that around five years ago, and I fear the prospects have only got worse since then.
The recent change of Government in Israel offers an opportunity for a change in approach, especially as the previous Government’s formal proposal in which they threatened to annex the west bank has been stopped after widespread and near universal opposition, including from parliamentarians across all parties here in Westminster. Although the formal annexation has been stopped, the expansion of illegal settlements continues, and Palestinian families in East Jerusalem and the west bank continue to experience eviction from their homes and even demolition of their homes and property.
Both the EU’s agreement and the subsequent continuity agreement between the UK and Israel mandated that goods from illegal settlements would be excluded from the preferential terms of any UK-Israeli trade agreements. On this issue, I have a few questions for the Minister. First, will he confirm that the UK Government still support the principle of non-preferential trade for goods from illegal settlements, and will the Government uphold that non-preferential treatment in any future FTA or deal with Israel? Secondly, are the Government aware of the current level of known UK trade with Israeli settlements? Additionally, will the Minister make it clear that British companies have an obligation to ensure that their products and services are not used in grave breaches of international law?
I know that some people have called for the UK to block all trade with Israel, but that is not an action that we support. Such an indiscriminate measure would hurt millions of ordinary Israelis and Palestinians, both in Israel and in the west bank and Jerusalem, and it is not a policy applied to other countries. We do not support a ban on goods from the state of Israel, nor do we support the policy of boycott, disinvestment and sanctions, which is often known as BDS. The hon. Member for Hendon explained how the boycott has affected Palestinian businesses. They already suffer from a lot of difficulties, and this boycott could make things even worse. I therefore share the concerns about BDS that were raised by the hon. Members for Harrow East, for Southport, for Buckingham and for Hendon and others in this debate.
In the wider context of our overall relations with Israel, the Labour party insists on a renewed focus on negotiating a two-state solution that ensures a viable and sovereign Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel. We welcome the Government taking this step towards a new free trade agreement with Israel, which we hope will benefit UK businesses and consumers, but we also want to ensure that the Government address the key issues around human rights and specifically those relating to settlements. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Paisley, and I welcome the hon. Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) to their places. I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this important debate and all Members who have been present this Thursday afternoon and made important contributions.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the question of why I had been away from the House in recent weeks. In his absence, but for the record, I should say that I have been away for a couple of weeks due to the birth of my son. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you.
That explains why the hon. Gentleman has not seen me in the Palace, but I am delighted to be back and discussing this important topic, because Britain is strongly committed to her trade and investment relationship with Israel, one of the middle east’s most dynamic and innovative economies. Israel is a key ally and friend to the United Kingdom. We share the same values and are key strategic partners in the middle east. The bilateral trade relationship is very strong, and we want to continue to work with Israel to strengthen our relationship as we emerge as an independent trading nation for the first time in 50 years.
Let me be crystal clear at the outset: we are strongly opposed to boycotts. Open, honest conversations best support peace efforts. The United Kingdom is very clear about this—always has been and always will be. We have also made clear our commitment to supporting the Abraham accords and to working with Israeli and Arab partners to promote our shared prosperity and regional security.
The continuity agreement that we signed on 18 February 2019 was one of Britain’s first. It replicated the scope of the EU-Israel agreement, with key provisions covering tariff liberalisation, customs, regulation and public procurement. This trade and partnership agreement, which entered into force on 1 January last year, secured the future of our bilateral trade relationship. Anglo-Israeli trade was worth £4.6 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q2 2021, making Israel—I am pleased to say that I agree with my counterpart, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth—the United Kingdom’s 40th largest trading partner globally. The United Kingdom is Israel’s second largest trading partner, behind only the United States.
While it is difficult to disaggregate trade figures, it is certainly true—to respond the comments by the hon. Member for Strangford—that covid has depressed trade around the world, but that makes trade with Israel all the more important. Co-operation between us in sectors such as science and technology—and particularly medical science, which we have heard a lot about this afternoon—is already very strong, with Israel’s status as a start-up nation and the United Kingdom’s as a science superpower going hand in hand.
We have heard some great examples from so many colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. I was also particularly drawn to the examples given by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore), which showed the huge scale of imports that we benefit from here in Britain, but we export to Israel too. We should not lose sight of that benefit to both countries. The London Electric Vehicle Company, for example, makes taxis in Warwickshire—I am sorry to say that to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, although I am sure Members from Warwickshire will be pleased with that news. LEVC vehicle exports totalled something like £1.46 million in 2021—a year when trade was depressed because of covid—and the company anticipates purchases of something like £730,000 a month this year. That is just one example but, to the point made by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), as far as I am concerned, the sky is the limit.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) said, around 500 Israeli firms operate in the United Kingdom. That investment from overseas is creating thousands of jobs in high-value sectors, and over 20 Israeli firms are listed on the London Stock Exchange or AIM—its alternative investment market—demonstrating the benefit and strength of capital markets in the City of London. Of course, we can always do more to assist the relationship, and I know that Ministers across Government will look carefully at the comments made by Members, including their suggestions on changes to the visa regime.
We can always do more to help businesses succeed, and the Department for International Trade is doing that right now. We have a dedicated team of trade advisers in Tel Aviv, and UK Export Finance has a risk appetite for Israel of at least £4 billion, which is helping firms operating from the United Kingdom to win contracts, insure their operations and obtain trade financing. The United Kingdom and Israel share a world-leading culture of entrepreneurial, tech-savvy and innovative businesses, which will be celebrated in an innovation summit later this year—a clear opportunity to highlight our ambitious trade, science and innovation relationship, and a chance to showcase the shared talents and skills of world-leading British and Israeli businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East asked about what more we could do to enable binational approaches to research and development, and I am pleased to say that the UK Science and Innovation Network is already making great strides in that direction.
Outwardly, the stock of foreign direct investment from the United Kingdom to Israel was £1.4 billion as of 2019. We trade across a huge range of sectors, as I have said, but both our economies are also highly oriented towards services, which represent over 70% of GDP for each country. After the United States, we are Israel’s second-largest collaborator in pharmaceuticals and medical products, and the pandemic has catapulted the need for digital health solutions, with Israel already being the world’s leader in this area. It has therefore become even more important. Beyond that, we seek opportunities in business services, research and development, and professional and management consulting services—the biggest traded services between our countries, making up 12.5% of the overall trade relationship. Although our trading relationship continues to be predominantly goods-based, at around 65% of our trade, our economies are highly services-oriented, and I believe that huge scope for the future lies in our trade in services.
As two like-minded partners, with expertise in areas such as technology, innovation, data and digital, we are confident that the United Kingdom and Israel can agree an ambitious deal that will complement both our economies. On 29 November, the Prime Minister announced that we would begin talks with Israel this year on an enhanced free trade agreement. Given both the political and economic importance of our trading relationship with Israel, we expect the FTA to form a substantial part of our bilateral trading relationship. I should emphasise that Her Majesty’s Government are committed to scrutiny and openness in our FTA negotiations. We aim to be transparent, consultative and accountable throughout our trade agenda, and we believe we compare favourably with other parliamentary systems around the world.
On 2 December, the Secretary of State for International Trade announced that the United Kingdom would open our formal call for evidence very shortly. This call for input will allow the views of businesses, the British people, civil society and others—not only parliamentarians —to be fully heard during the mandate development process, helping us shape the negotiations for our comprehensive FTA. The specific coverage of the objectives for an FTA, as asked for by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts, will be concluded following this call for input, to ensure that we have fully listened to the views of all British people, businesses and civil society. It simply would not be appropriate to speculate on the contents of such a call for input—and, indeed, on our objectives—before completing that work. However, I am pleased to be able to say that the Secretary of State plans to travel to Israel in early February.
We will publish our strategic approach, an initial scoping assessment and a Government response to the call for input before starting negotiations, giving the House the means to scrutinise our negotiation approach, its projected impact, what we have been told by British people and businesses and our response to their views. We will, of course, update the House in the usual manner after each negotiation round and when requested to appear before the relevant parliamentary Committees.
Jim Shannon
I must apologise for not being present when the Minister mentioned me. I have a private Member’s Bill tomorrow and the Minister responsible has been trying to catch me, so I had to speak to her. I just wanted to ask if, when those meetings are held with the Minister’s counterparts in Israel, we could have some indication of the input of Northern Ireland companies in that process? Obviously we want every part of the United Kingdom—all the regions—to benefit.
Mr Jayawardena
The hon. Gentleman can be absolutely assured that the views of every part of our United Kingdom will be fully taken into account. In fact, the Board of Trade recently visited Belfast to demonstrate our commitment to ensuring that the Department for International Trade works for every corner of our United Kingdom. The timings of the negotiations will very much depend on the readiness of both sides, which, of course, means agreement with the Israeli Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the hon. Member for Strangford raised the potential opportunities that a future FTA might provide. While British businesses already benefit from our existing trade and partnership agreement and we would not, of course, want to prejudice the call for input, I believe the potential to take our trading relationship to the next level through an enhanced and improved FTA is very clear. There is the opportunity to remove or significantly lower tariffs for major British exports, such as in the food and drink sector. We see opportunities to give easier access for all British companies—whatever corner of the country they are from, and including small and medium-sized enterprises—to set up, do business and access the Israeli market.
There is significant scope to expand our trade in services, including digital services, which grew a remarkable 73%, albeit from a low base, between 2010—remember 2010?—and 2020. Co-operation in this area is, frankly, very limited in the existing trade and partnership agreement, and we see real opportunities for an enhanced FTA to supercharge the trade in services, which would complement our services-based economies, as we have discussed during the debate, and cement the United Kingdom as the international services hub.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the hon. Member for Strangford asked how such an agreement would fit into the United Kingdom’s wider trade agenda. Of course, our potential FTA with Israel is just one component of our ambitious wider international trade strategy. As an independent trading nation, the United Kingdom has the freedom to forge new bonds of trade with partners, friends and like-minded souls worldwide, based on British interests and shaped by British priorities. We will continue to carefully plan and sequence our negotiation programme to ensure that it delivers the maximum benefits for the United Kingdom. No longer restricted by anti-competitive and protectionist one-size-fits-all regulation from the EU, the United Kingdom will pursue prosperity through free and fair trade with sovereign nations, based on our shared interests and underpinned by the agreements we are forging worldwide.
We have signed deals covering 70 countries, plus the EU, that account for more than three quarters of a trillion pounds-worth of trade, and we intend to continue that record of success in 2022. We have a clear and ambitious goal that will put global Britain in pole position to pursue new opportunities to connect British businesses to the most dynamic economies of the decades ahead.
The International Trade Secretary recently kicked off negotiations with India, one of the world’s largest and fastest-growing economies. We are looking to accede to the trans-Pacific partnership, one of the world’s largest free trade areas, and we have launched our consultation on a potential deal with the Gulf Co-operation Council. Of course, Members will already know that we have secured an agreement in principle with New Zealand and have finalised our agreement with Australia. Those deals are aimed at unlocking growth in every corner of our United Kingdom.
The hon. Members for Brentford and Isleworth and for Airdrie and Shotts raised the matter of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and their status in a potential FTA. The United Kingdom has an interim political, trade and partnership agreement with the Palestinian Authority, which entered into force on 1 January 2021, which we are committed to implementing. That will help protect our bilateral trade relationship, which was worth £24 million in the four quarters to the end of Q2 2021. We value our bilateral trade relationship with the Palestinian Authority and will continue to work closely together to build on our trade continuity agreement.
Dr Offord
Is the Minister aware that the Palestinian Authority themselves do not agree with any kind of boycott? In December 2013, the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, stated:
“We don’t ask anyone to boycott Israel itself. We have relations with Israel, we have mutual recognition of Israel.”
Mr Jayawardena
I am delighted to have that contribution on the record. Just as we stand clearly against boycotts and support the Abraham accords, the United Kingdom’s position on the settlements is clear. Settlements are illegal under international law, damaging to peace efforts, and call into question, I am sorry to say, Israel’s commitment to the two-state solution. We have urged Israel to halt its settlement expansion, which threatens the physical viability of a Palestinian state. Britain’s view is that the settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law, so they are not covered within the scope of our trade agreement. This means that goods imported from illegal settlements are not entitled to the benefits from trade preferences, and we remain committed to that approach. This shows that more trade need not come at the expense of our values.
The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts raised the matter of arms exports to Israel. Her Majesty’s Government take their arms export responsibilities very seriously. We do not want any British equipment to be misused, and we aim to operate one of the most robust arms export control regimes in the world, complying with all our international obligations. We consider all export licence applications thoroughly against a strict risk assessment framework, and keep all licences under careful and continual review as standard.
The Government will not grant an export licence if to do so would be inconsistent with the strategic export licensing criteria. Those criteria provide a thorough risk assessment framework for assessing export licence applications, and require us to think hard about the impact of providing equipment and its capabilities. These are not decisions we take lightly. We continue to monitor the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories closely and keep relevant licences under review. If necessary, we will take action to suspend, refuse or revoke licences in line with the criteria, but only if circumstances require.
The economic relationship between Israel and the United Kingdom is strong, based on the trade and partnership agreement that allows British and Israeli businesses, exporters and consumers to buy and sell freely and with confidence. Israel is a friend and ally in the middle east, with an innovative and dynamic economy. Tech, science and innovation co-operation between businesses of both countries continues to grow, with real benefits for consumers across our United Kingdom. Through an ambitious, forward-looking and comprehensive free trade agreement, founded on the strength of the Israeli and British economies, we look forward to developing and improving that relationship even further in the future as an independent trading nation.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
Mr Blackman, you have some time for your winding-up speech. You do not need to take it all.
Bob Blackman
I will try not to abuse your offer, Mr Paisley. I thank colleagues across the Chamber for their contributions on this important debate. I thank the Minister for his replies to some of the questions. The one that he did not answer was when these trade negotiations would actually begin. We look forward to those beginning and bearing fruit as we come forward.
To update the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I was stuck in a tremendous traffic jam on the way to the House. That is why I was not there for the beginning of International Trade questions, but I got there in the end. I put that on the record.
I thank my colleagues and friends who have made contributions. We have highlighted, in many aspects, the opportunities for trade. I say to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) that one of the issues here is that we are not seeking to replace trade anywhere else, but to enhance trade. By expanding trade, everyone gains. The fact is that Israeli businesses and Palestinian businesses gain from trade agreements that we have with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Those individuals in Palestine who work for different companies—some work for Israeli companies—actually benefit directly as a result of free trade being created and enhanced.
I thank the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for her contribution. I noted, of course, that she referred to the historical ties between the British Labour party and the Israeli Labour party. Of course, the Israeli Labour party is now currently in the coalition Government, and has agreed to further settlements in the west bank, so I am not sure quite where that fits with the hon. Lady’s particular speech as we went along.
I thank everyone here for this debate, my colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it to take place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) for enabling everyone to have a morning off next Wednesday—in preparation, presumably for Prime Minister’s Question Time, so we can hone our skills. I look forward to the Secretary of State for International Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) visiting Israel and hopefully announcing on her visit the start of those trade talks, so that we can look forward to that free trade agreement being in place by the end of this calendar year.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered UK and Israel trade negotiations.
Written Statements
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
NATO Parliamentary Assembly
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Middle East, North Africa and North America (James Cleverly)
The hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) has replaced the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) as a Member of the United Kingdom delegation to the NATO parliamentary assembly.
[HCWS546]
Public Service Pension Scheme Indexation and Revaluation 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
Public service pensions continue to be among the very best available. This technical update sets out the rates of indexation and revaluation that will be applied to public service pensions in April 2022. Scheme Police Firefighter Civil Service NHS Teachers LGPS Armed Forces Judicial Revaluation for active member 4.35% 4.1% 3.1% 4.6% 4.7% 3.1% 4.1% 3.1%
Legislation governing public service pensions requires them to be increased annually by the same percentage as additional pensions (state earnings related pension and state second pension). Public service pensions will therefore be increased from 11 April 2022 by 3.1%, in line with the annual increase in the consumer prices index up to September 2021, except for those public service pensions which have been in payment for less than a year, which will receive a pro-rata increase. This will ensure that public service pensions take account of increases in the cost of living and their purchasing power is maintained.
Separately, in the career average revalued earnings public service pension schemes introduced in 2014 and 2015, pensions in accrual are revalued annually in relation to either prices or earnings depending on the terms specified in their scheme regulations. The Public Service Pensions Act 2013 requires the Treasury to specify a measure of prices and of earnings to be used for revaluation by these schemes.
The prices measure is the consumer prices index up to September 2021. Public service schemes which rely on a measure of prices, therefore, will use the figure of 3.1% for the prices element of revaluation.
The earnings measure is the whole economy year-on-year change in average weekly earnings (non-seasonally adjusted and including bonuses and arrears) up to September 2021. Public service schemes which rely on a measure of earnings, therefore, will use the figure of 4.1% for the earnings element of revaluation.
Revaluation is one part of the amount of pension that members earn in a year and needs to be considered in conjunction with the amount of in-year accrual. Typically, schemes with lower revaluation will have faster accrual and therefore members will earn more pension per year. The following list shows how the main public service schemes will be affected by revaluation:
[HCWS548]
Petition of Concern Mechanism: Northern Ireland Assembly
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
I am today laying before both Houses of Parliament the fourth report by the UK Government on the use of the petition of concern mechanism in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
As part of the New Decade, New Approach deal upon which devolved Government was restored in Northern Ireland on 11 January 2020, the UK Government committed to undertaking such a report every six months.
This report covers the period from 12 July 2021 to 11 January 2022 during which no petition of concern has been lodged against any motion in the Assembly.
The fact that there have been no uses of petitions of concern since the restoration of the political institutions is a positive reflection of the conduct of business within the Assembly. However, I want to take this opportunity to reinforce the importance of a stable, mature, functioning Executive and Assembly that is focused on addressing the issues that really matter to daily lives.
The UK Government are standing by their commitment to bring forward legislation that provides the necessary reforms to the petition of concern mechanism. The Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions Of Concern) Bill has completed report stage in the House of Lords. Once this legislation has completed its passage through Parliament and received Royal Assent, it is crucial that the Assembly reflects the detail of these reforms in its Standing Orders to ensure the full implementation of these aspects of the New Decade, New Approach deal.
This is the final report of this Assembly mandate under the UK Government’s commitment to report on the use of the petition of concern. As there have been no uses of the petition of concern mechanism since the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly, we conclude that no further reform is necessary at this time.
[HCWS550]
Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2020 and Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
I wish to update the House on the Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2020 and Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2022.
The Government consulted within the House and this statement is to ensure that the House is aware of the circumstances of the order’s approval, and to set cut the UK Government's approach in bringing forward the order.
The order was laid on 16 November and considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The motion for approval was agreed at the end of the day’s business on 5 January 2022, having been tabled to the Order Paper just before the rise of the House for the Christmas recess.
Due to an administrative error in the orders tabled by the Government, which was not picked up by the House of Commons authorities, the order was listed for decision under Standing Order No. 118(6) even though the previously planned Delegated Legislation Committee debate had been postponed until early 2022. The order therefore appeared on the Order Paper ahead of its debate in Committee, and was agreed by the House without objection on Wednesday 5 January. The debate in the House of Lords took place as normal on 14 December 2021.
The Secretary of State for Scotland is due to make this order next week.
The Order
The aim of this order is to make consequential amendments to legislation in view of the Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2020. This legislation was brought forward by the Scottish Government and introduces opposite sex civil partnerships to Scotland. The changes made through the Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2320 reflect that civil partnerships in Scotland are no longer just an option for same sex relationships and they are now open for opposite sex relationships too.
The Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2020 and Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2022 amends the Equality Act 2010 to add further protection for individuals, such as religious and belief celebrants, who do not wish to take part in the registration of mixed sex civil partnership. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 is also amended to reflect that because opposite sex civil partnership is now recognised, it is possible for civil partners to apply for gender recognition and stay in the civil partnership.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 is also amended to ensure equal treatment for children of marriages, and children of civil partnerships, in cases of assisted reproduction. The order also makes changes to legislation concerning the registration overseas, through UK consular officials and armed forces, of marriages and civil partnerships.
The order is made under the Scotland Act 1998 and extends across the United Kingdom, although some provisions only extend to certain parts of the UK. It demonstrates devolution in action, and the UK Government is pleased to support the Scottish Government in introducing opposite sex civil partnerships to Scotland.
[HCWS549]
Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Annual Accounts 2020-21
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) has made the following ministerial statement:
Under regulation 3 (1) (d) of the Trunk Road Charging Schemes (Bridges and Tunnels) (Keeping of Accounts) (England) Regulations 2003, annual accounts for the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Charging Scheme are published today. The accounts relate to financial year 2020-2021 and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS547]
Grand Committee
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
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 resume after 10 minutes.
The time limit for the next debate is one hour, and the advisory speaking time is wrong: your Lordships can have as much as four minutes each.
Social Media: Deaths of Children
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kidron
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the role played by social media in the deaths of children in the United Kingdom, including by suicide, self-harm and murder.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I declare my interests, particularly as chair of 5Rights and as a member of the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill.
My Lords, many of you will have read reports of how, in 2017, 14 year-old Molly Russell took her own life after being bombarded by self-harm and pro-suicide images. In the days after her death, her father Ian tried to access her phone simply to try to understand what had happened to his daughter. The notes from his diary from that time make for grim reading. The woman at the so-called genius bar in the Apple store “could not help”. The promised follow-up call failed to materialise—despite Ian sitting grief-struck, pen in hand, waiting at the appointed hour. Even after he finally found a person enabled to deal with him, they were only allowed to send a template information request form by email, which required a great deal of information from Ian but did not result in him receiving the information he requested. Apple has never helped Ian to access Molly’s phone, and without the assistance—indeed, the persistence—of the coroner and the police, the data it contained would not be available to Molly’s inquest, which is still investigating the contributory causes to Molly’s death four years later.
Judy and Andy Thomas struggled similarly after the suicide of their 15 year-old daughter Frankie, unable to get anything more than an automated response. Their letters to Instagram’s CEO Adam Mosseri, copied to the European headquarters, went unanswered. It was only after a year of desperate letter writing to anyone who might help that I was able to arrange a call on their behalf, only for them to hear that they were not going to get the information they wanted. During Frankie’s inquest, despite evidence that her suicide was highly influenced by what she had seen online, Wattpad refused to disclose full details of Frankie’s activity on its platform, even while confirming that self-harm and suicide stories on its site should be rated mature and should not have been accessible to a user registered as a child.
Olly Stephens, who was 13 when he was murdered, had repeated problems online. He was groomed by a wannabe county lines gang, extorted by a group who stole his bike and, finally, lured to a park where he was killed, the murder having been organised online. His father Stuart says that in the hours immediately after his murder, Olly’s mother and sister had to trawl through social media sites to get evidence because they were aware that they would never get it from the tech companies.
When a child dies, parents are asked to clear out the school locker: they inherit the artefacts of a child’s life. If the authorities have access to information that may shed light on the circumstances of their death, it is shared as a matter of course—but not if that information is online. The argument made by the tech sector is that it is protecting other users, but that does not account for parents’ need for closure and evidence necessary for police and coroners, and it conveniently obscures the role of the tech companies themselves as they continue to recommend harmful material and facilitate violent abuse to other children.
In the other place two days ago, Ian Paisley MP introduced a 10-minute rule Bill to grant next of kin the right to access a smartphone and other digital devices of a person upon their death or incapacity. He made the important point that much precious material, both sentimental and material to understanding what happened, is withheld from the next of kin simply because people—particularly the young—do not think to leave a password in their will. Indeed, it is unlikely any child would even have a will. He also pointed out that access was eminently possible: in the US some states have brought in legislation, such as the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, to retrieve financial assets. Once again, money trumps child safety.
The Joint Committee made two recommendations on this issue: that the Government should consult on how terms and conditions of online services can be reformed, by law, to give bereaved parents access to data; and that Ofcom, the ICO and the Chief Coroner should review the powers of coroners to ensure that they have unfettered access to digital data, including data recommended to children by tech companies, following the death of a child—and that both of those should happen before the Bill reaches Royal Assent.
I ask the Minister to put on record today that the draft Bill will be amended so that other families do not suffer as the Russell, Thomas and Stephens families have done. We cannot bring their children back, but we can create a lasting legacy for their extraordinary courage in speaking out.
The purpose of today’s debate is not only to secure justice for bereaved families, but to highlight steps that should be taken to prevent tragedy. Sitting on the Secretary of State’s desk is a comprehensive set of recommendations from the Joint Committee that would fundamentally change how the sector treats children. They are: mandatory safety by design to scale back harmful algorithms, design features and business practices; a binding child safety code that sets out risks and mitigations in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child; alignment with the age-appropriate design code to make sure the Bill applies to all services likely to be accessed by children, so that there is nowhere to hide; mandatory cross-platform co-operation, so that risks known by one service are routinely shared with others; statutory codes for moderation and complaints, to ensure that swift action is taken before tragedy strikes; and a regulatory focus on risk rather than size. Again and again we see that small is not safe. I refer back to the content Frankie saw on Wattpad, a service that many of you will never have heard of.
There should also, of course, be the immediate introduction of age assurance, without which we will fail to deliver any of the protections that I have set out. This list is neither aspirational nor nice to have: these are essential and interdependent elements of a proportionate and enforceable regime to make our children safe. All other business sectors apply rules of product safety, and it is tragic that it has taken the death of children to give urgency to our calls for regulation.
TikTok, Meta, Apple and Alphabet are among the most valuable and profitable companies in the world, and the tech sector is now alone responsible for 25% of global GDP. But these same companies are algorithmically promoting and spreading material that nudges children into states of despair; priming kids into gambling habits with reward features that induce dopamine hits, which cause addiction; granting unfettered access to age-restricted spaces; fuelling an epidemic of eating disorders, self-harm and radicalisation; and systematically hiding the evidence. Even in a world focused on the balance sheet of loss and profit, children’s lives should not be the collateral damage of the tech sector. It is time to bring that to a halt—and halt it we can.
The Joint Committee recommendations have unprecedented support across the political spectrum, as they do across civil society. All that is required is for the Government to act. I ask the Minister, when he answers, to acknowledge that failure to have these things in place is costing children their lives—and I ask for a commitment to all the Joint Committee’s recommendations that relate to children. This is a time not for cherry-picking headline-grabbing changes, but rather for setting out an enforceable product safety regime that will keep our children safe.
Given the tech companies’ determined efforts to frustrate basic child safety requirements, I ask the Minister again to explain to the Committee how the Government can justify delaying the introduction of age assurance. They have failed to implement Part 3 of the DEA and rejected my Private Member’s Bill for privacy-preserving age assurance, instead putting their faith in a voluntary scheme which their own officials estimate would take a minimum of two years and do nothing to impact on those who do not volunteer. This implicitly goes against statements made last week in the other place by the Minister for Digital that self-regulation has failed. If the Government acted today, Ofcom could set out expectations of age assurance by the end of the year, unleashing an arms race of innovation to meet those expectations. Failing to act means that more families will suffer heartbreak and more children harm.
In spite of my many years on this beat, Olly’s father Stuart shocked me to the core when he said that, since Olly’s death, he has received over 300 taunting and abusive messages via social media—images of people waving knives, celebrating Olly’s death and threatening his wife and daughter with rape, along with pictures identifying where they live. This sector does not have the authority or willingness to police itself. My deepest thanks go to those noble Lords who have chosen to speak; given our sad subject matter, I anticipate their words with trepidation.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to one particular issue that the noble Baroness has raised, quite rightly in my opinion, in this debate and in the report of the Draft Online Safety Bill Joint Committee, of which I know she was a very active member. This is the question of access to data from the accounts of people who have sadly taken their own lives where there is a view that it may reveal something useful and important for their grieving relatives.
I do this as somebody who used to work for a social media platform and took part in the decision-making process on responding to requests for data in these tragic circumstances. In the internal debate, we had to weigh two potential harms against each other. It was obvious that refusing to disclose data would add to the pain and distress of grieving families, which the noble Baroness eloquently described for us, and, importantly, reduce opportunities for lessons to be learned from these awful situations. But there was also a fear that disclosing data might lead to other harms if it included sensitive information related to the connections of the person who had passed away.
The reluctance to disclose is sometimes described as being for “privacy reasons”. We should be more explicit; the concern in these cases is that, in trying to address one tragedy, we take an action that leads to further tragedy. The nightmare scenario for those discussing these issues within the companies is that another young person becomes so distressed by something that has been disclosed that they go on to harm themselves in turn. This genuine fear means that platforms will likely err on the side of non-disclosure as long as providing data is discretionary for them. If we want to solve this problem, we need to move to a system where disclosure is mandated in some form of legal order. I will briefly describe how this might work.
Families should not have to go directly to companies at a time of serious distress; they should instead be able to turn to a specialist unit within our court system which can assess their request and send disclosure orders to relevant companies. The noble Baroness eloquently described the problem we have with the status quo, where people approach companies directly. The platforms would then be required to provide data to the courts, which would need to be able to carry out two functions before making it available to families and coroners as appropriate.
First, they should be able to go through the data to identify whether there are particular sensitivities that might require them to withhold or effectively anonymise any of the content. To the extent possible, they should notify affected people and seek consent to the disclosure. In many cases, the platforms will have contact details for those individuals. Secondly, they must be able to consider any conflicts of law that might arise from disclosure, especially considering content related to individuals who may be protected by laws outside of the jurisdiction of the UK courts. This would need to include making decisions on content where consent has been withheld. If we could set up a structure such as this, we could have a workable regime that would work for all interested parties.
A few minutes is obviously not long enough to cover all these issues in detail, so I will publish a more comprehensive post on my blog, which is aptly named regulate.tech. I thank the noble Baroness for creating an opportunity to consider this important issue, one I am sure we will return to during the passage of the online safety Bill.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I was looking for something original to say in this debate, so I went back to my previous existence as a Member of the European Parliament. One of the things that is still of great regret is that, in leaving Europe, we have left all the structures around it that can be helpful when we face problems like this. In particular, I think of the work of the EU directorate for health. In Europe, most countries face problems similar to ours and are trying to solve them. Overall in Spain, suicide among young people—defined by Spain as those aged 15 to 29, which probably goes a bit further than we would—is the second highest cause of death. Spain has put €100 million into a strategy to combat it, but it is doubtful whether it will do anything because, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, the key is getting access to the information. Italy is setting up an observatory, although it seems to be taking a long time. Even in Finland, which one thinks of as a very enlightened, Nordic country that deals with such issues, something like 25% of all suicides are in the age group from 15 to 24, so it is a problem that that country is also grappling with.
This is one of the great tragedies of leaving the EU. Although the EU has no formal responsibility, everyone will tell you that there are unofficial meetings of Health Ministers, where anything can be put on the agenda by any member state, so it is possible to exchange information. Have the Government gone to any effort to get information from other countries on how they are dealing with the issue, what their plans are, and whether they will publish that?
I have a couple of points from the briefing that I got. Among other things, it says that in a debate in the House of Commons, Chris Philp
“argued that they could ‘edit their algorithms tomorrow […] they should not be waiting for us to legislate; they should do the right thing today’.
Is there any sign of that right thing being done today? If so, it is certainly not recognised here. The briefing also said that
“Instagram said that it would ban graphic images of self-harm as part of a series of changes.”
Has it? Also, the online harms consultation says that the framework should include provisions to address suicide and self-harm. Has that been done?
Finally, can the Minister confirm in relation to suicide that all platforms and people of all ages will be in the scope of the final Bill when it is presented to the House? That is an important point. We need to go beyond just this group to the wider problem.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and I thoroughly agree with him that we have to go beyond this specific issue to the wider problem. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Kidron on keeping up the pressure on this incredibly important debate. I want to briefly mention two different aspects: one is about young girls and one is about young boys.
I have talked before about the sexual pressures on girls that happens online. I remember so well the anxieties of being a teenager, of trying to set up Spare Rib magazine and feeling immensely conflicted about trying to own your own sexuality and your own rights in the world, to have dignity and control, and to be able to say yes and indeed to be able to say no. Looking back, if I had been able to see the kind of pornography that is now available at a simple click, that would have been extremely hard. You are presented with streams and streams of apparently willing young women who agree to have sex with not so much as a dinner and a nice night out; what they enjoy is a semi-situation of rape, over and over. The women are almost always extremely thin, shaved, hairless, kind of perfect—almost doll-like. They are completely and utterly unreal and bear very little resemblance to what an average teenage girl is. While my noble friend Lady Kidron has spoken so movingly about girls who take their own lives, there are a lot of stages on the road to that which are about misery, dejection, unhappiness and shaming—a consciousness all the time that “I am not good enough.” Indeed, the entire advertising world—you see this hugely online—is predicated on the fact that you could be better. There is no such thing left as normal hair or a normal size. In every case, if you spend money, you will be better.
In my remaining minute and a half I will talk about what happens to young men. In particular, I want to talk about my friend Laura Bates, who wrote Everyday Sexism. She used a fake account to set herself up online as a boy. She said, “I am 15 and I’m having a tough time getting dates” and said that she had acne. To start with, there was advice about acne drugs, then a bit of advice about how to dress. Then the advice started to get a bit creepier: “Are the girls in your school being too uppity? Are they beating you in class?” Quite soon, in the course of a few weeks, Laura found herself on an incel website. The progression was just click by click. It preyed on every sort of suspicion that a young man might have that somehow women are doing better and that somehow their lot in life is not their responsibility but the result of what feminists have done.
It is not a question of arguing this or that; the point is that when you see how the end product of misogyny and incels is now “Kill the women”, that is incredibly dangerous. Right across the internet, young people are being drawn into ever more extreme points of view that bear very little relationship to their reality. It happens across sexuality and with young men. At all points the internet companies could stop this but in many instances they are just making money out of preying on people’s weakness and lack of self-respect. These are all really difficult things to talk about, and if, as has been happening in the pandemic, your online world becomes even more real than your real world, you have very little way to express those feelings and get some help.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for securing this most important debate on the contributory role of social media to the deaths of children, and I pay tribute to her persistent campaigning on this subject. It is a timely debate given that only a month ago we received the legislative scrutiny committee’s report on the draft online harms Bill.
I want to focus on the whole question of the extent to which we understand the numbers and the causes of child deaths, not only where social media plays a significant role but in a whole range of other issues. This is a much broader problem than just this topic, although it is a superb example of why we need better research and better recording of data.
In December, your Lordships’ House debated the Second Reading of my Coroners (Determination of Suicide) Bill. It would require coroners to record any relevant contributory factors once a death by suicide has been officially determined. It would not be a finding in law, the results would be anonymised and published anonymously, and it would be akin to the well-established processes that hospitals have for recording comorbidities of death.
All sorts of groups are campaigning and looking for much better data. Your Lordships will know that the reason why I have brought forward the Coroners (Determination of Suicide) Bill is because we have been trying to get accurate stats on gambling-related suicides—many of them are of younger adults—which, according to the recent evidence from Public Health England, accounts for roughly 8% of all suicides. That is a really significant number of suicides. Regardless of the criticisms of my Bill on feasibility, there is an important principle here about how we record comorbidities and use that evidence. Again and again when campaigning against massively powerful industries, one argument is that we do not really have the statistics. I have to say that Her Majesty’s Government officially come back with the same argument again and again, so for the last five years, my question has been, “Please will you help us to start getting accurate stats?” That is why I turned up with the idea of a coroners Bill. It is absolutely crucial to get the accurate stats because, if we do not, we will never be able to devise strategies to reduce the number of suicides. You do not reduce suicides in general by saying nice and comforting things about it to people; you find out what the causes are and get a strategy to address each one. Particularly when we have something that causes 8% of deaths, we really need to collect that sort of evidence.
Of course the Government are legislating to prevent child exposure to some of the content that Molly Russell and others saw, but it is absolutely crucial that we get ways of trying to understand properly what is going on. The Government say that my Bill will not be an appropriate mechanism to collect the evidence. What it has led us to is discussions with a number of coroners about postvention studies, which may be how we can get hold of that data. However it is, we need it. Will the Minister tell the Committee specifically what Her Majesty’s Government are doing to try to get this data, rather than keeping saying, “Oh dear, we haven’t got it”? It is vital that it is collected, if we are to have an evidence-based approach to preventing suicides in relation to all associated risk factors.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for securing this short debate, and pay tribute to the work she has done in this area. Her perseverance and tenacity are admirable.
There are many benefits of social media; it is a source of learning, advice and support for children and young people. But as we know there are many negatives too, as illustrated by the case of Molly Russell and other cases highlighted by the noble Baroness. There is also concern that harm caused by these platforms is exacerbated by the systems and processes of companies which amplify the spread of this dangerous content. Access is made easier by recommendations and algorithmically generated content suggestions. There is another concern that these companies then thwart the efforts of grieving parents to retrieve the data and information relating to their child’s online activity.
While quantifying the link between social media and children’s health is complicated, and it is argued that there is no definitive academic research, I agree with the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee that the absence of good academic evidence is not evidence that social media and screens have no effect on young people and children—they do. The Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill recently reported the evidence it has received linking self-harm and suicide attempts with accessing content online. There is therefore a strong case for taking action now, before the situation gets worse, and acting on the recommendations of the Joint Committee. It would be very short-sighted to lose the opportunity of including these in the online safety Bill.
I urge the Government to accept the Joint Committee’s recommendations to protect children as a comprehensive package. A statutory code on child online safety must be introduced, and the Bill should be extended to ensure that children are offered safety measures on all services likely to be accessed by children. Access to data by grieving parents in case of death should be included in the Bill.
Will the Government adopt in full the recommendations of the Joint Committee report and, if not, can the Minister please explain the reasons why not? Will the Government accept the proposal by the Law Commission to criminalise the encouragement of self-harm, threats of serious harm and stirring up hatred on grounds of sex, gender and disability? Can the Minister also confirm, in relation to suicide and self-harm content, that all platforms and people of all ages will be in scope of the final Bill presented to Parliament, and that age assurance will be part of the Bill? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on securing this important debate. We are kindred spirits. Like the noble Baroness, I have long campaigned to try to make the internet safer for children, and I declare an interest as a vice-president of Barnardo’s, which is also deeply concerned about these issues.
Protecting children online must be an urgent priority for this House. The online safety Bill provides hope that the internet will be made safer for everyone, particularly for children and young people, but it will not come into force until 2024, so how are we going to protect children today, especially from violent, illegal sexual pornography? We need interim measures now, because even the DCMS research has shown that too many of our children have already been exposed to harmful content online, including violent pornography. Children themselves believe that they should be protected from harmful content online and on social media, saying that social media content often made them feel negatively about themselves, humiliated, threatened, embarrassed and, in some cases, was cause for self-harm, or even suicide. Research by Facebook found that 13% of teenagers in the UK said feelings of wanting to kill themselves had started on Instagram.
The online safety Bill is a once-in-a-generation chance to help to address these problems and finally make the internet safer for children, but we also need interim measures in place now to protect children online. If we wait for the online safety Bill, a whole generation of children and young people will have been left unprotected. The legislation has already been passed in Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, which provides some level of protection for children. Why not implement it? We have already wasted almost three years so far by not doing so. Think of the harm that has been done in that time.
Along with Barnardo’s and many other children’s charities, I have been calling for the Bill to include age verification for all dangerous pornography sites, but it needs to go further to make sure that it defines harmful but legal content that depicts self-harm and glorifies suicide, so that this, too, can be put on the virtual top shelf, behind a wall and out of sight of vulnerable children. It is also essential that children can access the support they need when they have been abused, bullied and exploited online, which can lead to suicidal thoughts. They desperately need mental health support teams in their schools, too. Social media platforms need to invest in awareness-raising, as well as signposting children who may be at risk of bullying or abuse to the support they need to recover and stay safe.
What research have the Government undertaken to understand the true impact of social media on vulnerable children’s mental health? Will they agree to meet prior to the publication of the online safety Bill with Barnardo’s and other children’s charities to discuss how to ensure that it protects children from preventable harm? Why will they not implement Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act as an interim measure to show that they truly care about children’s well-being?
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, most deaths are sad and some are tragic, but a death from suicide is particularly devastating. It leaves the survivors with a question that remains on their minds for the rest of their lives: what went wrong, what more could I have done? The death of a young person from suicide is especially gut wrenching. How can anyone, let alone someone so young, find existence so unbearable that they choose to reject the precious gift of life? Self-harm, which sometimes leads to death, belongs in the same category.
I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has secured this debate before the online safety Bill comes before the House and has pursued this issue so tenaciously for so long. I support what she said about the need for parents of a deceased child to have access to their child’s digital data, which was reiterated in the 10-minute rule Bill by Ian Paisley. If it is possible to add further pain to parents whose child has committed suicide, it is by them not really knowing, or not knowing fully enough, why their child took their own life. This happens if, for example, they leave no farewell note. The parents whose child has committed suicide, partly as a result of what they have seen and heard on social media, may have some idea of what has happened, but they will want to understand as fully as possible and to have access to their child’s data.
I will not repeat what the noble Baroness and other people have said about the terrible difficulty at the moment of parents getting access to the data and the need to do something about it. As I say, this adds to the distress of the parents, who want to know more and try to understand. As has been mentioned, the failure to allow access means that we cannot learn from it to ensure that the same or similar material is not recommended to other children.
Further than this, I simply add my support to the other measures proposed by the noble Baroness. We know how serious the problem is. We have been told that there is no exact academic data, but the surveys we have indicate that there is a link in about 25% of suicides and cases of self-inflicted harm among young people. It is very difficult to doubt that link if one has seen some of that material.
As the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Benjamin, reiterated from their experience of this, it needs to be set within a wider problem. As they will know better than I do, there is a particular fragility among young people at the moment, partly because of Covid and partly because of the intense pressure of social media.
A voluntary code is not enough, of course, so with other noble Lords I look to the Minister to support the recommendations of the Joint Committee. We need clear, firm, enforceable legislation, which is essential to prevent the circulation of harmful content and to ensure that young people simply cannot have access to it.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is one of those debates in which one has a developing feeling of sympathy with the Minister who is going to reply. Unfortunately, that feeling does not always survive the Minister’s speech. We will see what happens today.
It is quite clear that the internet and the online world are something that we have not really wanted to address that fully in the past. The whole system has been a little stand-offish, finding that it is a little frightening and moves very quickly. Most of us are probably happier if somebody younger than us, often our children, explains how the damned thing works.
Having said that, it is quite clear now that, in the greatest traditions of legislation, there are problems that we must deal with. One of those problems is that people feel that they are in a space where they cannot be touched, where they can do what they like and indulge themselves, and where money-making activities and things such as this are not things that the rest of society can get at, and it is none of their business to get in there.
This was brought home to me by a family friend, and this relates directly to the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in her opening remarks. I live in the village of Lambourn, in the “valley of the racehorse”, and one of my family friends down there is a trainer whose daughter is an up-and-coming jockey. He discovered that after a couple of bad rides his daughter was being threatened with being raped and killed. He was quite appalled when he discovered that this is regarded as fairly normal. The real problem started when he went to the police, who said, “Oh well, we’re not really going to do anything about it”.
We must have a structure where we can intervene on this, as we would on other occasions. That is one of the things that must come out of this. There are technical points—on algorithms, how you follow things through, and how the people running these sites generate interest, money or indulgence—but the fact of the matter is that we must have a very clear guide as to how we will get in and make sure that there is a price if people break any rules, laws or structures. This could be one of the restrictions. It would not stop everything, but it would give us a structure to go down.
We need knowledge from sites that suicide victims have used. We need to be able to get in and use this control, which we regard as normal everywhere else—we have laws, and if you break them, we enforce them. The police, of course, will need help with new structures. If, when the Minister replies, he could give us an idea of what this enforcement structure will be like and the Government’s thinking about it, he would have taken the first step. Not only do we need to have these structures, but people have to know about them and the fact that society has decided that we are not going to put up with this anymore. That is one of the key points here.
I will not try to follow my noble friend’s experience and technical detail on this, because I cannot. But the principle behind this must be that the Government take this seriously, act and state publicly that this happens. If they do not, we will carry on having this problem again and again, and people will not react and do something about it because it is easier just to hope that it goes away.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, we do indeed owe the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, a big debt of thanks today for bringing forward this important debate, and particularly for the way in which she addressed the issues, giving us the stories and case histories of those tragedies. Too often, this is a very dry subject: we look at the numbers, for example in the Lords briefing on this, and do not think of the human stories and the impact beyond them. That is really important for us to focus on as legislators.
In part, the online harms agenda has come about because of social media-influenced behaviours, with suicide being principal among those. But despite much fanfare about the DCMS policy work, little has yet been delivered by the Government to make the internet a safer place for children and young people.
The briefing for this debate, which I referred to, sets out very worrying trends in relation to suicide and self-harm by young people. Although correlation does not always imply causation, the evidence gathered by a variety of charities and campaign groups strongly points to a negative role played by social media. Our personal experiences reinforce and tell us that, too. My kids grew up as the internet was expanding and growing, and they often relayed to me horror stories of experiences that they and their friends had had and the impact that it had upon them.
The implementation of the age-appropriate design code was a welcome step forward, but we have a long way to go on this, and I hope we can hear more from the Minister on that. As we know, significant gaps in the regulatory landscape remain, and it is not clear whether the Government will adopt all the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill, so perhaps the Minister could enlighten us a bit more on that. I know he cannot give us a full picture and pre-empt a future Queen’s Speech, but some hints would be very helpful.
Even if the Government choose to close loopholes and go further on statutory requirements, your Lordships’ House is unlikely to consider the Bill until late 2022, or possibly even 2023. As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, the entry into force of key measures is unlikely before 2024. That delay is unacceptable, particularly at a time when young people are under great pressures—the impact of Covid, and the sense of delay to their lives and their personal development that the past two years have brought. We urgently need to bring forward more measures. I was encouraged to see that, in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Government have at least adopted a position on online racist harm to footballers. That was a sign of good intent, but they need to build on it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has been tireless on this issue, and has raised it many times. We should offer as much support as we can to that campaign. Perhaps the Minister will outline some of the Government’s commitments today. When can we expect some concrete actions—legislative or non-legislative—in the current parliamentary Session? That would be a good way forward.
Debates such as this are important, but what we really need is change. We as a party stand ready to engage with colleagues from all sides, and with the platforms themselves, to make the digital world a safer place for children and young people to be, but we need more than warm words from Ministers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for tabling this important debate, and for beginning by setting out the personal and often harrowing examples that should be uppermost in our minds as we debate these important issues. I am grateful, too, for her drawing to my attention the 10-minute rule Bill introduced in another place on Tuesday by Ian Paisley MP. I have read the transcript of his remarks, in addition to listening to the contributions of noble Lords today.
Her Majesty’s Government share the concerns raised by noble Lords today about the risks to children of harmful content and activity online, including in social media. Although many children have a positive experience online—it is important to remember that—it is clear that the presence of harmful material, and in particular content promoting suicide or self-harm, can have a serious impact on children’s mental health and well-being. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, was right to point to the fragility and vulnerability of young people, including adolescents and people well into their teens.
Sadly, we know from research, from coroners’ reports and from colleagues in the police that harmful online content, including that seen in social media, is playing an increasing role in individual suicides. In addition, figures from 2020 show that 40% of 12 to 15 year-olds who are concerned about and have experienced content promoting self-harm cite social media as the source. There is also evidence that gangs are using social media to promote gang culture, to taunt each other, and to incite violence.
The Government are determined to hold social media and other platforms to account for this harmful content, and to make the UK the safest place to be a child online. A key part of that is the online safety Bill, which, as noble Lords know, we published in draft last May. For the first time, under that Bill platforms will have a clear legal responsibility for keeping their users safe online. Platforms will have to understand the risk of harm to their users, and put systems and processes in place that improve their users’ safety.
All companies within the scope of the Bill will have to remove and limit the spread of illegal content, such as material that encourages or assists suicide, and take steps to prevent similar material from appearing. The largest tech companies will also be held to account for tackling activity and content harmful to adults who use their service. Under the new laws, those companies will have to set out clearly what content is acceptable on their platforms, and enforce their terms and conditions consistently. That will enable us to address many of the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Balfe, and to hold companies to account.
The strongest protections in the legislation will be for children. Services likely to be accessed by children will need to conduct a child safety risk assessment and provide safety measures for their child users against harmful and age-inappropriate content. Platforms likely to be accessed by children must consider the risks that children on their services face from priority harmful content—that will be set out in secondary legislation—and any other content they may identify that could cause harm to children. They will also need to consider the risk of harm from the design and operation of their systems.
We expect priority harms for children to include age-inappropriate material, such as pornography and extreme violence, and harmful material such as that which promotes eating disorders and self-harm, as well as cyberbullying. Ahead of designating the “priority harms”, which will be in scope of the legislation, the Government have commissioned research to build the evidence base on harms to children online. This research will review the prevalence and impact of a wide range of harmful content to ensure that the legislation adequately protects children from content that is harmful to them. Ofcom will have a duty to advise the Government on priority categories of harm to children and will also want to draw on evidence and views from relevant parties. That includes Barnardo’s, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. I am pleased to say that my honourable friend the Minister for Tech and the Digital Economy has already met Barnardo’s in that regard.
The regulator, Ofcom, will set out the steps that companies can take to comply with their duties through statutory codes of practice. Platforms will then be required to put in place systems and processes to mitigate the risks that they have identified. Ofcom will hold companies to account both on the standard of their risk assessments and on the safety measures that they adopt and can take enforcement measures if either of these fall short of what is expected. The approach that we are taking means that children will be much less likely to encounter harmful content in the first place and platforms will no longer, for example, be able to target harmful material at children through the use of algorithms, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, mentioned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, asked why the Government cannot in the meantime bring in Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act. The Government have taken the decision to deliver the objective of protecting children from online pornography through the online safety Bill, which we are confident will provide much greater protection to children than Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act would, as it also covers social media companies, where a considerable quantity of pornographic material is available to children at the moment. It would also not be as quick a solution as I think the noble Baroness imagines to commence Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act as an interim measure. The Government would have to designate a new regulator and that regulator would need to produce and consult on statutory guidance. The Government would then need to lay regulations before Parliament ahead of any new regime coming into force. That is why we are keen, as noble Lords today have said they are as well, to do this through the online safety Bill and to do it swiftly.
We expect companies in the scope of the duties of the online safety Bill to use age-assurance technologies to prevent children from accessing content that poses the highest risk of harm. Standards have an important role to play in delivering that and Ofcom will be able to include standards for age assurance as part of its regulatory codes. Companies will either need to follow the steps in the codes, including using these standards, or demonstrate that they achieved an equivalent outcome.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked whether the Bill would make reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I cannot pre-empt the Government’s response in full to the Joint Committee on which she served, but I note in the meantime that the Bill reflects the three principles of the general comments: for the best interests of the child to be a primary consideration; on children’s right to life, survival and development; and respect for the views of the child. Of course, on that and all the recommendations, the Government will respond in full to the Joint Committee, for whose work we are very grateful.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, says, regulation of this nature will require effective enforcement. We have confirmed our decision to appoint Ofcom as the regulator and our intention to give it a range of enforcement powers, which will include substantial fines and, in the most serious cases, blocking. There will also be a criminal offence for senior managers who fail to ensure that their company complies with Ofcom’s information requests, to push strong compliance in this area. Ofcom will also be required to set out in enforcement guidance how it will take into account any impact on children due to a company’s failure to fulfil its duty of care.
The Bill will apply to companies that host user-generated content or enable user-to-user interaction, as well as to search services. We have taken this approach to ensure that the Bill captures the services that pose the greatest risk of harm to users and where there is current limited regulatory oversight, without placing disproportionate regulatory burdens elsewhere.
I know that the noble Baroness and the Joint Committee have recommended aligning the scope of these measures with that of the age-appropriate design code. We are grateful for their consideration of this important issue as well. It is vital that any approach is proportionate and remains workable for businesses and Ofcom to ensure that the framework is as effective as possible. We are carefully considering the Joint Committee’s recommendations and are committed to introducing the Bill as soon as possible in this parliamentary Session. In the meantime, we are working closely with Ofcom to ensure that the implementation of the framework is as swift as possible, following passage of the legislation.
I will say a bit more about the interim measures that we are taking, as noble Lords rightly asked about that. We have a comprehensive programme of work to protect children online until the legislation is in force. Ahead of the Bill, the video-sharing platform and video-on-demand regimes are already in force, with Ofcom as the regulator. They include requirements to protect children from harmful online content such as pornography. In addition, the Government have published an interim code of practice for providers to tackle online child sexual exploitation and abuse.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, mentioned our work in asking the Law Commission to review existing legislation on abusive and harmful communications. The Law Commission has published its final report, putting forward recommendations for reform. These include a recommended new offence to tackle communications that encourage or incite self-harm. The Government are considering the recommendations and will set out our position in due course.
As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, said, every death is sad—many are tragic, but they are incredibly so when they involve a young person. The Government recognise the difficulties that some bereaved parents have experienced when accessing their loved ones’ data. Disclosure of data relating to a deceased person is not prevented by the UK’s data protection legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, noted, some companies operate policies of non-disclosure to third parties, including parents, unless a user has taken active steps to nominate a person who may access his or her account after he or she dies or if there is a legal obligation to disclose the data.
We are discussing this issue with companies directly. Officials met Instagram on 22 December, for instance. We are also in discussion with the Information Commissioner’s Office about digital assets. It is important to recognise, as the Joint Committee did, that an automatic right of access is unlikely to be appropriate in every case. Some people might be concerned about the disclosure of private information or other digital assets to third parties after their death.
The Government are grateful to the Joint Committee for its recommendations in this area. While I cannot make any commitment or pre-empt the Government’s response in full, I am happy to say that we will continue to give careful consideration to this before we respond and outline our proposed next steps.
It is worth noting that coroners already have statutory powers to require evidence to be given or documents to be produced for the purpose of their inquests—this would include relevant digital data following the death of a child—with sanctions where such evidence is not given or documents produced. They are well aware of these powers.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans mentioned his Private Member’s Bill. As he knows, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is clear that it is beyond a coroner’s powers to determine why somebody died. Coroners’ investigations are about determining who died, how, when and where, but not why. However, he is right that more can be done to understand some of those circumstances. We recognise that quality information on the circumstances leading to self-harm and suicide can support better interventions to prevent them in the first place. The Department for Health and Social Care is considering including questions on gambling as part of the adult psychiatric morbidity survey this year to help establish the prevalence of suicidal tendencies linked to gambling and to improve its evidence base. As the right reverend Prelate knows, we are taking a close look at the Gambling Commission’s powers as part of our review of the Gambling Act.
The Government are deeply concerned about the impact of harmful content and activity online on children. We are committed to introducing legislation as soon as possible to ensure that platforms are held to account for this content so that future generations can have a healthy relationship with the internet. I look forward to debating that Bill when it comes to this House. In the meantime, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate.
Government of Qatar
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Moynihan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of current relations with the government of Qatar.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, recent years have seen the torch of international attention shone into the recesses of the State of Qatar as it prepares to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup. It is a country that, since it won the right to host the world’s leading global sports event, has been more than aware that the spotlight would shine on all aspects of its country, policies, laws and people. The Government of Qatar have turned this opportunity into a national challenge for change—a dynamic for managing the modernisation of a small country into a fast-changing leader in the region with global influence and strategic importance for the UK.
Before I seek to set out the case for this view, I declare a key interest. The background to this debate came from Sir David Amess, a close friend for nearly 40 years, who encouraged me to join the APPG on Qatar as vice-chair of the group with responsibility for sport.
Qatar lies at the strategic epicentre of many of the key issues that dominate international politics today. As we sought to manage the exit strategy from Afghanistan, it was the Qataris who brought stability and support to the lives of thousands of refugees, many of whom were seeking support in the UK. It is a country that has been vital to the UK by ensuring the security and prosperity of the Afghan people, providing safe passage to unaccompanied children heading to new homes here, fighting for the rights of women and minorities through its open dialogue with the Taliban, and evacuating 74,000 people from Afghanistan—and over 210 British citizens—while housing the British embassy to Afghanistan in Doha.
Qatar is a friend and an ally. It supplies 20% of our gas requirements and has directed its resources to co-invest with Rolls-Royce on a net-zero journey to deliver a multibillion-dollar pathway to achieve that goal by 2030, working on small modular reactors to create net-zero carbon energy at scale; to back an educational foundation for innovation in technology outside the nuclear industry, where the promotion of energy transition projects maps the steps towards pioneering climate change technology; to look to support 10,000 climate tech jobs; and to aim to create five UK unicorns by 2030 with the support of the Qatar Foundation.
The UK is offering substantial support in its hosting of the FIFA World Cup. Foster, Zaha Hadid Architects, Turner & Townsend, the FA, football clubs such as Leeds United and Sheffield United, universities such as Leeds Beckett and the University of Liverpool and many others are working on projects to harness the power of football to drive positive change.
As we know, Qatar is a country that has invested heavily in the UK and seeks a further £5 billion of investment in our economy by the end of this year. It hosts the RAF Middle East headquarters at the al-Udeid airbase, where coalition forces are based in the fight against Daesh. It works with the UK on cybersecurity. It has a joint Typhoon squadron and seeks to ensure a combined strong stand against terrorism and the promotion of peace, stability and security in the Middle East. Now, when it will become the first country in the Middle East and the Arab world to host the FIFA World Cup, we should look forward to further collaboration to ensure that football leaves a positive human, economic, social and environmental legacy for the country, the region and the world.
There are rightly matters of significant concern to Members of this House which the torch of international attention has magnified, not least the treatment of migrant workers. In the face of widespread international concern, the Qatar Government were right, from the outset, to extend an invitation to the International Labour Organization to set up a well-staffed office in Doha. Its recent in-depth analysis showed that 50 workers had lost their lives in 2020, but these included work-related deaths across all aspects of society and the economy, including, for example, road traffic accidents.
The ILO must, of course, be free to criticise and publicise its concerns, and it is. It is expected to remain and to protect the interests of the migrant labour workers after the World Cup, and I very much hope that it does. Every human rights issue must be pursued. Everyone deserves the right to work safely and securely, whether that be in Qatar, the UK or elsewhere. Qatar’s national policy on occupational safety and health has had to be transformative, and it has been. The end of the kafala system was a critically important first step and established a direction of travel for many other countries in the Middle East that retain it, either entirely or in some form. The Qataris know that they still have further to go. They will need to ensure media freedom. A minimum wage has been introduced, and the banning of exit visas is an essential and critical step. It is also essential that no action is taken against members of the LGBTQ+ community who arrive to be present for the World Cup finals. Subsequent reform must provide a welcome sign to the world and, indeed, to the world of sport.
We are to host the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham later this year. We must continue to campaign to reverse the position that the majority of Commonwealth countries participating in the Games still criminalise sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex and other forms of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression. Homosexual activity remains a criminal offence in more than 30 of the 54 sovereign states of the Commonwealth, and legal in only 19. I hope my noble friend will confirm that we will continue to engage with all countries where homosexuality is a criminal offence to seek an end to those laws, for we need to continue working with international partners and civil society to promote and defend universal freedoms throughout the world.
At Oral Questions in the Lords on 30 November, calls, led excellently by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, were made by some to boycott the FIFA World Cup or to adopt the now well-trodden policy of calling for a boycott by government officials and members of the royal family of attending the event. My view is well known, not least to the noble Lord, Lord Collins: that the boycott of any sporting event by Ministers and officials is the worst example of posture politics in the world of sport. It serves little purpose. It always generates a strong response from the host city or country and is forgotten the moment the sporting event starts.
I have long taken an active stance on human rights issues, currently as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sport, Modern Slavery and Human Rights. All Governments need to act decisively on human rights abuses wherever they exist by making the strongest representations to the country concerned. I oppose calls for a boycott or the withdrawal of government support. It remains my view that for sports boycotts to be effective, they must have the broad support of the international community and be the product not of posturing or reprisal but of an astute and practical moral calculus including a wide-ranging package of trade, travel and diplomatic measures to lead to action that will best advance the cause of human rights and the well-being of those whose rights are violated, as in apartheid-ridden South Africa.
At the same time, it would be wrong to underestimate the growing international influence of sport and the power of the FIFA World Cup or Olympic movement. The goal of sport is to spread fundamental human values as widely as possible, not to confine them exclusively to the western world, as we tended to do in the 20th century. Sport is about humanity and can contribute to the changes we should all seek by unifying our whole approach in seeking the change that is necessary wherever an event is held.
I would go further and argue that one reason why the FIFA World Cup should be held in Qatar is because sport is in itself a force for good. It is a mass phenomenon that gives enjoyment to hundreds of millions of people every week. We have gone far beyond the principle of the value of sport simply as entertainment. Sport, as a universal language, can help to promote peace, tolerance, reconciliation, change and understanding. It cuts across lines of class, nationhood, ethnicity and culture that might otherwise divide, and it is an exceptional vehicle for bringing people together, bridging differences and promoting communication and understanding. As a result, I firmly believe that by working together we can help Qatar to continue on the remarkable journey that it has embarked upon. I look forward to this debate and the response from the Minister on behalf of the Government.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend and to hear his views on the power of sport, which obviously he has vast experience of, and the impact that the World Cup will have on Qatar, where he also has a great deal of experience. I simply wanted to add, almost tangentially, some thoughts about culture and Qatar.
When I was the Minister for Culture many years ago, I supervised from our end the UK-Qatar year of culture, which I think was 2013, and I spent a great deal of time in that country. In fact, I randomly met Robert De Niro when I went to Qatar, which resulted in a diptel with the title “Ed Vaizey goes to Qatar. Robert De Niro’s waiting.” There is a cultural reference in there which I will leave noble Lords to work out.
I will get serious for a moment. There are two elements to the cultural links between the UK and Qatar that are worth emphasising. First, the Qatari Government have been very supportive of British culture. The emir and his wife supported a project in the British Library to digitise a great deal of records relating to Qatar and the Middle East, and they sponsored an exhibition at the V&A that highlighted Qatari cultural treasures. However, it is also interesting to note—this is where it is relevant to my noble friend’s remarks—that the Qatari Government and the emir have pushed forward the use of culture as a means of progress within the country of Qatar. They have built a state-of-the-art museum to show off cultural artefacts from Qatar and the region but, even more importantly, they have held ground-breaking exhibitions of western contemporary art that, frankly, can be quite challenging to a conservative mindset in the Middle East. That is a brave thing for them to do. I met Robert De Niro in Qatar because they were hosting a film festival, and I was out there when they hosted a fashion festival.
This is a textbook example of how countries and Governments in the Middle East can use culture frankly to push forward change and reform within society and their country. For me, as regards my engagement with Qatar, I was left with an abiding impression that this was a country committed to change and progress as well as being a valuable ally of ours.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for bringing forward this timely short debate. I declare my interest as a member of the Qatar APPG as well as my policing interests, which are in the register.
I first visited Doha in 2008 when I was on a parliamentary delegation discussing security matters. It was obvious at that time that the state was developing at an enormous rate, with buildings going up daily and facilities for the residents, and visitors, of the highest standard anywhere in the world. Yet it was still a very small city. I visited again a couple of years later and was astounded at the physical rate of progress of its cultural and built environment. It had doubled and more within those two years. What had not changed was its warm and friendly hospitality, which was demonstrated throughout our visit.
Along with colleagues, we were delighted to see the beginning of the building of its amazing Museum of Islamic Art, which the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, referred to. This was in a complex of many other cultural buildings, including a newly built opera house, a mirror-image of our own in London. The Cultural Village, as it was known, had not yet been fully completed—I expect it has been now—but it gave us a very good idea of what to expect, with an abundance of areas for poetry, music and art that would satisfy all tastes, as we have heard.
Since then, of course, Qatar has become a much valued and essential provider of around 20% of our gas needs, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to. A few years ago, I was invited to lead a delegation to visit the site at Milford Haven, where tankers transporting the liquefied natural gas from Qatar were being offloaded into state-of-the-art refineries and then distributed to our national grid. With the whole of Europe suffering the huge spike in energy prices, the UK has agreed a deal with Qatar to continue delivering LNG so that we have a safe and secure supply, one very good outcome of our trade deals.
In 2020, Qatar was the UK’s 34th largest trading partner and UK exports to Qatar were worth over £3.8 billion. As we have heard, its investments in the UK exceed £40 billion. Qatar has been a good friend to our country.
In the security industry, we sold Qatar 24 Typhoon aircraft, nine Hawks, Brimstone missiles and the services to go with them. Other investments in the UK include linking Rolls-Royce with their green energy operations. As we have heard, Qatar is one of Rolls-Royce’s biggest customers, especially for its Trent engines that power the aircraft for Qatar Airways, one of the most prestigious airlines in the world. It is also hoping to develop small modular nuclear reactors—SMRs—with Rolls-Royce, which, it is anticipated, will deliver thousands of new jobs. It is equally hoped that these jobs will be in areas of the country most in need of levelling up.
However contentious the venue, Qatar did win the right to put on the prestigious World Cup event, and we can only hope that it is as successful as other World Cups have been. There has been a lot of concern, quite rightly, about how migrant workers have been treated when building stadia for this event. Qatar’s human rights have been questioned and criticised, and I believe that its Government know that these things have to change. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to this. They have begun that process and are making strenuous efforts to address these international concerns. Qatar has created the National Human Rights Committee, which investigates abuses and is advancing the country’s standards, to take part in research programmes and advise other government bodies on human rights issues.
The Government have also developed a significant labour reform programme, and Human Rights Watch has commended Qatar on its progress and hopes that other Gulf countries might follow its lead, especially as it was the first country in the region to introduce a minimum wage. It is also the first Arab country to allow women the right to vote, although there is still a long way to go for women to have anything like equality with men.
This is a very febrile region. Qatar has its own security concerns, so it is perhaps not for us to criticise our country’s friends when they also have to face security challenges. As a good friend to our nation, we should be thankful that our trading ties with Qatar are close and secure and hope that the future plans for working together come to a happy conclusion for both our nations, especially for that troubled region.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord for initiating this debate; it certainly gives me an opportunity to reiterate some of the points that he has heard me make before. I agree with the sentiments of all the contributions that a strong relationship between the United Kingdom and all the Arab states of the Persian Gulf is in everyone’s interest. However, that relationship, important as it is, must be built on the values that we hold as a country. Qatar is a growing economy with considerable regional interests and influence, and although there are clear areas where co-operation is mutually beneficial, we must use that relationship to encourage modernisation, as the noble Lord said.
I agree with the noble Lord that the spotlight on Qatar, as the Qataris themselves say, in terms of that national challenge for change, will bring strong benefits. I agree that sport can be a force for good—although, as a keen Arsenal supporter, I point out that my neighbours back Spurs, and we sometimes do not get on that well. Whenever there is a derby game one fears for one’s own safety. Nevertheless, sport is a force for good.
I also agree that simply calling for boycotts is not necessarily the appropriate solution. The decision to bid for the World Cup was a big political decision of the Qatari Government, and it was politics that made them support that bid. We have done such things ourselves, as a country, because we know that hosting such events can be a force for good in all our communities. I agree with the noble Lord that calls for boycotts should not be made lightly, and that the circumstances of the South African boycott were absolutely right, in terms of the world community, because sport was not permitted to be played in the way that we would expect. But when it comes to the Winter Olympics, there needs to be some clear political statement about the genocide against the Uighurs. A political and diplomatic boycott shows that Governments do not want to be associated with the Games. But it is not for us to interfere with sport through a general boycott. I agree with the noble Lord about that.
As for the force for good and the power of change, there is still a lot more to be done. It is only a short time now until the World Cup, and a lot of the human rights concerns remain and will overshadow the competition. As I said in November, it is eight years since the International Trade Union Confederation first warned that Qatar was not recording the deaths and injuries of migrant workers during preparations for the tournament. According to the Guardian, more than 6,500 have died since the World Cup was awarded. I accept the noble Lord’s point that there is not necessarily a direct link, but this is about the number of migrant labourers who have gone to Qatar, and the impact of that.
Trade unions are, of course, practically outlawed in Qatar, and it is a scandal that Qatar continues to hide the true picture on migrant workers. The ILO’s report published last October, which I have referred to before, identified clear gaps in the collection of data on work-related deaths and injuries, and called for improvement. Importantly, it stressed the need to move with urgency, because behind each statistic there is a worker and their family. Last November I asked the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, what representations the Government of the United Kingdom had made to Qatar on the ILO report. I also asked him to come back to the House on the progress made on its implementation, so that further injuries and deaths could be prevented, and the families of those killed or injured could receive proper compensation. I have had no response from the noble Lord, so I hope that the Minister here this afternoon will be able to answer those questions, which remain outstanding.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the ILO presence is important and represents progress. But I also think that the United Kingdom has a responsibility to support the ILO and to back it in every respect.
This is not just about migrant workers; the noble Lord referred in his introduction to general oppression of minorities, particularly LGBT people. As he said, homosexuality is still illegal. The head of Qatar’s World Cup bid team has said publicly—I read it in the papers—that gay men attending the World Cup must not publicly display affection. They will be welcome, but must not display affection. As a gay man, I know what real oppression can be—forcing you to be invisible and not the person you are, unable to acknowledge the people you love. You may spend a fortune on going to the World Cup to be constantly fearful—what does it mean not to display affection? We have had cases in the Middle East where a United Kingdom citizen was charged with putting a hand on someone’s knee, something we perhaps all have done. Even the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, has done it—he has certainly done it to me in the bar a couple of times.
The important thing is how we support and back people. If we are truly saying that gay people will be welcome at the World Cup—why should they not be?—they should be able to be visible. They should certainly be able to acknowledge their sexuality in a public way, through flags, badges and things. I am not suggesting we have a blatant attack on the laws in Qatar, but the Government have a duty to protect and defend those people who go to the World Cup so that they do not have to face oppressive circumstances. The Human Rights Watch reports that we have seen mentioned the increased surveillance that will be installed for the World Cup. This could be used to target LGBT activists. In any sort of guidance the Government give, I hope they make that clear.
As has been acknowledged in this debate, the United Kingdom continues to attract significant investment from Qatar, and ties between our two countries are deepening as universities and other institutions establish a base in the Gulf. I too pay tribute to the late David Amess and I certainly pay tribute to the work of the APPG. As attention turns to the World Cup, it is incumbent on Ministers to hold the Qatari Government to account and push them even further in how they keep to their word on modernisation. I hope the noble Earl will give us a clear indication about the progress that has been made so far and the progress to be made for the future.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan for securing this debate and to all noble Lords who have contributed. I start by expressing my appreciation for the work of the all-party group and the commitment of its members to a strong UK-Qatar relationship. My noble friend mentioned his visit to Qatar with the parliamentary delegation led by Sir David Amess. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sir David for his tireless work for his constituents and others. He was tragically killed just days after his visit to Qatar. I am also deeply grateful to the members of the Qatari royal family and Government who sent their most sincere condolences to Sir David’s family and the UK at the darkest of times.
This debate is timely. It comes at a time when the Government are working to deepen and broaden the already strong UK-Qatar relationship. The Foreign Secretary visited Qatar in October as part of her first official visit to the Gulf. Qatar is one of our closest allies in the region, and she used her time in Doha to advance the key pillars of our bilateral partnership. My right honourable friend the Minister for Middle East, James Cleverly, will visit Qatar later this month to do similar, and we are currently preparing to host the first ever UK-Qatar strategic dialogue between the Foreign Secretary and Qatar’s Foreign Minister.
Our partnership with Qatar is sustained by myriad connections and friendships between our people. They are the golden thread that drives our co-operation and dialogue in a number of areas. As noble Lords may be aware, 20,000 British nationals live and work in Qatar, and the UK is a second home to many Qataris. In 2019, prior to the pandemic, there were a record 175,000 visits from Qatar to the UK, worth more than £0.5 billion to the UK economy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, commented on trade and investment. Our strong trade and investment relationship with Qatar provides jobs throughout the UK, supporting the Government’s levelling-up agenda. Our bilateral trade currently stands at just over £4.3 billion, which includes £2.4 billion of UK exports, making Qatar the third-largest export market in the region for British firms. Qatar is also a major investor into the UK, playing a role in a huge variety of developments mentioned by noble Lords, including the Shard, Heathrow Airport and even Chelsea Barracks. Overall, Qatari investment in the UK is currently estimated at £40 billion, and the figure is growing.
The latest example of this, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, was last month’s announcement by Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund of an £85 million investment in the Rolls-Royce small modular reactor programme, giving a boost to the UK’s net-zero agenda and demonstrating Qatar’s commitment to tackling climate change. Qatar is also an important partner for the UK’s energy security, as one of the world’s largest producers of liquefied natural gas. For example, QatarEnergy recently agreed a long-term contract with the national grid for capacity at the Isle of Grain natural gas import terminal east of London.
We want to grow this trade and investment relationship further, not just in Qatar but across the Gulf. That is why we are about to commence negotiations on an ambitious new free trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. The UK public consultation on this has just completed, and my colleagues in the Department for International Trade are working to agree a timeline for those negotiations to commence with ministries here and with our Gulf partners, including Qatar.
A number of noble Lords raised the subject of human rights. The friendship between our nations extends right to the heart of our respective Governments, as demonstrated by the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and my noble friends Lord Grimstone and Lord Wolfson, all of whom have either met or spoken to their Qatari counterparts in recent months. These close ties provide meaningful opportunities to engage on difficult topics and influence change. The UK Government do not shy away from raising human rights concerns whenever required, in public or in private.
We also welcome progress when we see it. We welcome the concrete steps that Qatar has taken to improve workers’ rights. The priority now is full implementation and enforcement of these reforms, and there is further to go. We stand ready to further assist and support Qatar’s efforts to improve workers’ rights, including through engagement with the International Labour Organization, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Collins.
Our enduring defence partnership with Qatar is exemplified through our joint Typhoon squadron. During a recent visit to RAF Leeming by the Qatari Minister for Defence, the Defence Secretary also unveiled the UK-Qatar joint Hawk training squadron and the delivery of Qatar’s first Hawk jets by BAE Systems.
In recent years, the upcoming World Cup has been a prominent feature in our engagement. We are working with Qatari authorities to support their delivery of a safe and secure tournament. We will continue to engage on the “everybody is welcome” message so that anyone, of any background, can go and enjoy themselves. A range of British companies is playing a notable role in preparations, from the cutting-edge design of football stadia to the recently launched countdown clock. I hope we will have two of the home nations competing in November, with one of them bringing home the trophy.
Qatar plays an important role in regional and global affairs, and our Governments work closely together on a wide range of important issues. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan, said, we commend Qatar for the role that it played helping to evacuate people out of Afghanistan in the summer, including British nationals. Prior to that, Qatar also played an important role in negotiations with the Taliban. Qatar also remains an important development and humanitarian partner for the UK. For example, we value our joint UK-Qatar programme on girls’ education in Syria, and we are keen to deepen our co-operation further as we look to 2022 and beyond.
Noble Lords raised a number of questions, which I shall go through now. I start with the moving speech from the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, in relation to LGBT rights. Qatari authorities have committed, as I said, to everybody being welcome at the tournament, including LGBT visitors. We will continue to engage on this between now and the tournament, so that anyone of any background can go and enjoy themselves. Qatar has confirmed that individuals will be able to display the rainbow flag.
My noble friend Lord Vaizey brought up the subject of culture ties with Qatar. The UK works with state ministries and key cultural and educational institutions, such as Qatar Museums, Qatar Foundation and the Katara cultural village. The UK attracts 3,000 students from Qatar annually; the British Council has developed a network of 1,200 Qatari alumni who have studied in the UK and runs a UK alumni awards programme that identifies outstanding achievers and celebrates their positive impact. The British Council stages an annual British festival to maintain and strengthen the UK’s position as Qatar’s cultural partner of choice, and to celebrate UK creativity and innovation across the arts, education, science, engineering, design, culture, entertainment and tourism.
In relation to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, on human rights, our close ties allow us to engage in these difficult topics, and we continue to raise human rights issues wherever appropriate. This includes migrant workers’ rights. No aspect of our relationship with Qatar prevents us from speaking frankly about human rights in public or in private. The UK has a strong history of protecting human rights and promoting our values globally, and we continue to encourage all states, including Qatar, to uphold international human rights obligations.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on a sporting boycott. The UK Government do not favour a sporting boycott. Along with the participation of national teams in World Cups, it is a matter for the relevant football associations, which operate independently from government, as required by FIFA statutes. The noble Lord also asked what we had been doing to press the Qataris on labour rights concerns. We encourage continued close collaboration between the Government of Qatar and the ILO during the second phase of the technical co-operation programme, which runs until the end of 2023. We also encourage continued co-operation with entities such as the international trade unions.
Having engaged with Qatari authorities, the International Labour Organization has, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, this month released a comprehensive report containing recommendations to improve data collection and analysis on occupational injuries and fatalities. This is a really important step, and we welcome that this is one of the key elements of Qatar’s national policy on occupational health and safety.
In conclusion, Qatar is one of our closest allies in the Gulf. We enjoy a friendly, frank and productive partnership that benefits our mutual security and prosperity. It is a relationship we greatly value, and I am grateful to all Members of this House and the other place for their support in helping to ensure that the UK-Qatar relationship attains new heights.
Oil and Gas: Subsidies and Licensing
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to ensure that (1) subsidies, and (2) licensing decisions, related to the oil and gas industry are not subject to undue influence from outside interests.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
First, I apologise for speaking seated; it is because I sprained my knee. Secondly, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Offord, to his first outing as a Minister, and I look forward very much to his maiden speech later.
Between July 2019 and March last year, government Ministers had 63 meetings with fossil fuel and biomass producers. That is nine times the number of meetings they had with renewable energy companies. That strikes me as slightly odd: a Government who chaired COP 26 and are meant to be switching to renewables very fast are meeting fossil fuel and biomass companies nine times more than the companies they are meant to be relying on to deliver the sustainable future they promise.
As well as the small private meetings, Ministers also attended hundreds of other larger group meetings with fossil fuel companies and their representatives. Fossil fuel producers were present at 309 of these, compared with 60 for renewable energy generators. Again, I do not understand why Ministers are focusing on a polluting industry that we need to shut down rather than renewables—with all the new job opportunities —which we need to grow very rapidly. But there is a clue, because the Conservative Party under Boris Johnson has taken almost £1.5 million in donations from the energy industry since 2019.
I mention this slightly disturbing fact because my intention in this debate is to draw attention to the fact that we live in a corrupt country run by autocratic Ministers who facilitate their friends pocketing large amounts of public money either directly, via government contracts, or indirectly, through putting holes in the regulatory system. We have seen this recently with the fast-track scheme for PPE contracts, the second-jobs scandal involving MPs, and all sorts of lobbying, such as David Cameron on behalf of Greensill. Money buys access, and access gives you everything from subsidies to licences.
The point I am making is that corruption has real-world impacts on government policy and the lives of ordinary people. If you are in the development industry, it might give you changes to planning red tape. If you are in the energy business, it might buy you another decade of profitable polluting while the planet burns.
We have a Government who are keen to support a polluting industry that is equally keen to support the Government. That might be excused if the oil and gas industry was filling the coffers of the Treasury as well as the Conservative Party, but surprisingly that is not always the case. In a recent court case brought by some climate campaigners, the judge acknowledged that in some years oil and gas companies had paid less in taxes than they received in tax breaks. The judge wrote:
“The claimants point to clear evidence of negative taxation flows in particular years; specifically negative tax flows overall in 2015-16 and 2016-17 of £2 million and £359 million respectively.”
The judge quite rightly said that focusing on single years ignored the fact that
“the tax position over the life of the concession is at worst neutral”.
We know that the UK is one of the most profitable countries for the oil and gas industry in the world, but we cannot even be sure that it pays its own way in tax.
The Government will claim that there is no subsidy for oil and gas, as they define fossil fuel subsidies as
“measures that reduce the effective price of fossil fuels below world market prices.”
In other words, the Government are giving the industry millions of pounds in tax breaks, but this is not a subsidy because it does not result in lower prices for consumers—well, that is obviously absolutely brilliant. But if the Government do not like “subsidy”, we could just call it “fossil fuel support”. Our Government do not deny the tax breaks; they just make it clear that this does not lower prices—it just enables the companies to make more profit. In fact, it is so profitable that those making money out of this polluting industry have enough spare cash to give it to the Conservative Party. That is obviously something we need to be concerned about.
Of course, if a previous Prime Minister, Cameron, had not cut what he called the “green crap”, our energy bills would be £40 lower each. Imagine how much lower they would be if he had been serious about insulating homes and expanding cheap renewable electricity, reducing our current reliance on foreign gas.
I will not go into all the details of the donations made by the industry, directly and indirectly, as we would need far longer than the hour that we have just to list them. Our self-regulatory system of government does not stop people buying influence. Civil servants are not around to take notes when a Minister attends a party fundraiser where oil executives have paid £12,000 for a seat at the table. Civil servants cannot know what conversations go on when an MP gets a huge donation to the private office a few months before they are appointed as a Minister in charge of projects that the donor wants to push through. It has happened in the past few years and, to be fair, the Minister I am thinking about stepped aside from a major decision—but only after the media contacted them.
The National Audit Office cannot even get access to Ministers’ WhatsApp conversations with party donors about favoured projects, unless the Minister self-declares that they regard the messages as relevant. Even when Ministers have been taken to court to get those messages, suddenly the phone is broken or lost—or they do a Boris, who claimed that messages were lost when he changed his phone number. It is not very nice, is it, quite honestly? It is shameful.
Last year, we chaired COP 26, but the Government are now dishing out a large number of licences for North Sea exploration. I really do not see how that can be compatible with reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Generic conditions have to be met, but only on new submissions; as I understand it, projects already in the pipeline get a licence without reference to climate change. How is that possible?
Individuals and companies linked to the oil and gas industries have donated more than £400,000 to the Conservative Party in the past year, while the Government mulled over these new licences. There might be parliamentary rules that stop Peers like me from asking Written Questions about the influence that such donations have on the Ministers making the decisions—which I have tried to do, but was stopped—but it is clear and obvious that the influences is there.
We have an acknowledgement that corruption is rife, the negative impacts on our environment are clear, and I really want to hear from the Minister today how we are going to junk the broken system of self-regulation in favour of a more robust legal system that involves either the police or an end to large-scale donations. The days of having a Ministerial Code enforced by someone appointed by the Prime Minister really should be gone. It does not work when Ministers do not play by the rules.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I start by welcoming the Minister to his post—it may be a baptism by fire—and thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for introducing this debate. My views will be pretty similar to hers on this topic.
The compelling scientific evidence tells us that we must act now to curb greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, but we seem to have an oil and gas industry which is resisting the science—not in words, because it is too clever for that, but in deeds. It is an industry that seems to have the various arms of government firmly tucked into its elbow and is leading them astray.
The OGA regulates and licenses petroleum exploration and production in the UK. Three of its 13 board members are shareholders in oil companies, and eight members of the board previously worked in the industry. There are no voices on the OGA board to put the view of climate scientists, workers or NGOs; it is not a balanced board. The Government seem to be similarly tainted. According to the Library briefing, £812,000 was donated to the Conservative Party between 2019 and 2020 by climate sceptics and fossil fuel interests.
Against this background, we must look at subsidies enjoyed by the sector. Of course, the Government insist that they do not give subsidies to fossil fuels, yet the UK’s tax regime makes it the most profitable country in the world for oil and gas companies, according to a report by Rystad Energy in January 2021. Since signing the Paris agreement, the UK has given £4 billion to oil and gas companies—and I thank the NGOs UPLIFT and Paid to Pollute for the figures. In the tax years 2015-16 and 2016-17, the Treasury gave more money to oil companies than it took from them in taxes. Here is a mind-boggling figure: in 2019, the UK received $1.72 in taxes for each barrel of oil, while at the same time and under the same conditions, Norway received $21.35 per barrel of oil. Here is another mind-boggling fact: Shell paid $1.8 billion in tax to Norway in 2020 but received from the UK Government £99.1 million, according to the company’s own annual report on payments to Governments. There are other examples, but time is short and the list is long, so I will move on.
I will quickly mention decommissioning. The UK taxpayer, not the polluters, pays the decommissioning costs of abandoned oil structures. The UK Government call this a tax rebate, but this process meets the WTO, International Energy Agency and IMF definitions of a subsidy. HMRC estimates that the cost to the UK taxpayer will be £18.3 billion—I think that is a gross underestimate. No wonder the risks of stranded assets are not a deterrent to the shameless companies pushing for new licences, because they are a licence to print money. The Government subsidise exploration, shareholders pocket dividends, and when the game is up, the company ups sticks and leaves it to the good old British taxpayer to pick up the tab. Shame on the Government for letting this continue. With vested interests whispering in their ear, it stinks of corruption. None of that tax relief is benefiting workers in the industry or you and me. We do not see the impact on our living costs, our energy bills or at the pump. The RMT union estimates that 12,000 jobs were lost in the industry in 2020. Compare that to Shell receiving £99.1 million in tax from the UK in 2020. The company went on to increase its dividend in 2021, just weeks after announcing plans to cut 330 North Sea jobs, and CEO Ben van Beurden took home $7 million in 2020. The system is rotten to the core.
The Minister will say that we have to protect the sector or we will be dependent on imports of Saudi or Russian oil and gas, but that is just not so. Most of our oil and gas imports come from Norway, and even if more was pumped from the ground, it would have to be placed on global markets and would not benefit UK citizens with lower prices. To reduce volatility and energy costs, the only solution is to produce more home-grown renewables. Put a halt to this madness and help our citizens lower their energy bills and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Invest in the green transition, get job security for oil and gas workers, and get energy security for the country by moving away from dependency on geopolitically unstable areas.
In ending, I want to go back to the science. The Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii recorded the highest-ever concentration of carbon dioxide in May 2021. At 419 parts per million, this is the highest since records began. We are in uncharted territory, and the rate of increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is accelerating. The time for arguing and prevaricating is over—we have to stop burning fossil fuels.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on securing this debate and look forward to the Minister’s maiden speech later.
We can point to donations or meetings, but I would like to spend a couple of minutes focusing on whether the structures of government are perhaps out of kilter with our modern goals for energy. It appears that there are legacy structures and conflicting goals within government that at times are not joined up.
In 2014, the Wood review was published and made a number of recommendations focused squarely on increasing the efficiency of the UK continental shelf in the extraction of hydrocarbons. The review then informed the Energy Act 2016 and ushered in the Oil and Gas Authority, a government-owned company that has taken over a range of responsibilities from government in relation to overseeing developments in the UK continental shelf. This body’s primary objective is maximising the economic recovery of hydrocarbons. It is therefore not necessarily a question of external influence. Rather, we have created a statutory obligation and a body single-mindedly pursuing a very narrow set of goals within our energy policy. It may be occluding the real energy agenda that we should be pursuing.
At the time of the Energy Bill in 2016, we argued that to create a new body with such a narrow remit represented a missed opportunity. It was clear even then that UK plc’s pursuit of barrels of oil and, to a lesser degree, therms of gas from the North Sea was unlikely to be the biggest priority. It is an old, mature field, and the biggest discoveries were all found decades ago. What remain are very risky and expensive fields, which the bigger operators are now finding it is not in their interests to exploit. When we think about energy security and climate considerations in the round, is it correct and right that we should have this body and this statutory obligation that skew our focus, and potentially the focus of Ministers?
The UK is rightly considered a leader on climate change, thanks to both its domestic actions and its role in international negotiations. It does not sit well for a country such as the UK, a very mature economy that has arguably benefited from the exploration of oil and gas over decades, to be seen to be trying to extract the very last drop of oil and gas out of the North Sea without a real economic case for doing so. We have had decades of relatively stable and secure energy provision. We have managed to provide a secure and affordable lowering of our carbon footprint at the same time, which has benefited businesses and consumers. Our oil and gas efforts in the North Sea and the UK continental shelf have not contributed to those goals; other sources in our energy policy do that job far more effectively. We need only look at the sudden spike in gas prices now to see how a policy based on fossil fuels can undermine our ability to deliver affordable energy.
I turn to the international case. The case will always be stated that we need to extract our oil and gas, otherwise we will be importing from other places. But in reality we do not use the majority of the oil production from the North Sea domestically, because our refineries are not fit for the refining of those oils; most of it is traded. On an economic basis, it does not matter where it is extracted—we will all face the global price set in the traded market—so that argument does not really hold water.
Another often-cited advantage to the UK is the jobs. The jobs in the North Sea oil and gas sector are very limited—around 30,000 direct jobs. Just the low-carbon economy today employs 200,000 employees, so clearly there should be a much greater focus on the low-carbon future sources of energy, rather than pursuing this very narrow goal.
We have not really addressed the problem of how a Government can develop a balanced policy fit for UK plc in terms of a large, rather than a narrow, set of interests. The risk is that, given these high prices, there will yet again be a temptation to invite in the fossil fuel experts. We will probably hear, even today, a call for a return to “drill, drill, drill”, and the idea that finding more resources will be the way out.
I argue that that would distort the reality, which is that we have a vast array of opportunities to exploit energy, which go beyond fossil fuels. We have a huge offshore wind industry and, as we have recently seen, we are granting very large licences to that sector. That is where our future lies, and it would be a mistake to invite in a narrow band of experts, yet again, to dictate to us what our energy policy should be in response to the current energy crisis.
I believe that there needs to be another Wood review—an updated opportunity to look again at what our focus should be for our own indigenous energy sources. It is clear that there are huge challenges ahead of us. From my perspective, climate is the largest of them, but equally there is energy security, and there are economic concerns that we have to address. We have huge potential to secure investment in a range of zero-emissions technologies, but we need to focus on that and make it our priority.
We should see the hydrocarbons in the North Sea in that context. They are no longer our greatest asset; if anything, they will be a net drain on the public purse in coming years. We receive very little in taxation. Let us start a review to assess whether the Government have the right bodies and the right powers in place—and if we are to have an energy Bill, let us look again at the OGA and whether the obligation it was given is correct for 2022.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for missing the first few seconds of the debate; foolishly, I was sitting in the Chamber instead of here. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on securing the debate. I have always longed to agree with her, since I like her so much, and I do agree with her on the two objectives of the debate. I am against subsidies for the oil and gas industry, as I am against subsidies for renewables. I am also against undue influence being brought to bear on government.
The oil and gas resources with which this nation has been endowed by a beneficent providence are, essentially, the property of the people. It is right that the economic rent and value of those resources should be extracted for the benefit of the people and not given away. I first made myself an enemy of the oil industry when I published a document called North Sea Giveaway, advocating that licences should be not allocated but sold to the highest bidder, so as to extract the economic rent. For a while, it actually changed the Government’s policy. That was before I was ever a Member of Parliament; I had more influence then than I do now. Sadly, it did not continue for ever, and eventually Governments and officials went back to allocating, rather than selling, auction blocks.
Instead of extracting the money that way, they tried to do so by imposing a whole range of taxes—the royalty, the petroleum revenue tax and the supplementary corporation tax, all on top of the basic corporation tax that other industries pay. Since 1975, when oil first began to be extracted from the North Sea—I was then an energy analyst in the City—the oil industry has paid over £186 billion in those taxes to the Government.
Beyond the folly of giving away the licences rather than selling them, the idea that the UK subsidises the oil and gas industry is a nonsensical myth. The £4 billion that the noble Baroness mentioned is not a subsidy. Every industry is allowed to offset the costs it incurs to produce revenues against the revenues that those costs generate. The oil industry is no exception, but in that industry some of the costs are incurred after the revenues have been generated—in particular, the decommissioning costs. It is absolutely normal and acceptable for companies to be able to offset those costs against revenues in previous years. They get back tax that they paid on those revenues that were in excess of their costs. That is normal, and to describe it as a subsidy is, frankly, an abuse of language.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
I am enjoying this very much, but can the noble Lord comment on the rules that now underwrite those decommissioning costs with taxpayers’ money? As I understand it, that will cost us in the region of £20 billion over the coming years, because we are now underwriting some of those decommissioning costs. Is that not a subsidy?
Lord Lilley (Con)
It could well be but, as I understand it, that is not the £4 billion to which the noble Baroness referred.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Maybe. It seems unwise to have got into a position in which the oil companies are required to do something that they cannot and have not been financing, and to take it to the taxpayer. I think that the noble Baroness will agree with me that up to now there has not been a subsidy. If we did not allow the costs of decommissioning to be offset against the revenues that the oilfields generate, we would effectively be taxing rather than supporting the most ecological activity that we require of oil companies; namely, the removal of what they have constructed in the North Sea.
The second thing that the noble Baroness is against is undue influence on licensing. One of the arguments in my pamphlet about the North Sea giveaway was that giving away those huge resources means that the civil servants who decide on it will be open to corruption. Amazingly, in the ensuing years, I found no evidence of that micro-corruption; nor is there any evidence of macro-corruption, in the sense of the oil and gas industries exercising undue influence. On the contrary, the offshore fields are not being developed—Cambo and the other one whose name I forget—and, onshore, hugely valuable shale resources are not being exploited. It is clearly not the oil industry that is exercising undue influence; somebody else must be. It is not those who want to reduce carbon emissions who are exercising undue influence because, by and large, particularly in the case of shale, if we import gas instead of producing our own—that is the consequence of not allowing shale exploration—we incur greater emissions, not just in transport but in liquefying and then deliquefying gas, which is an energy-intensive process.
There are two ways in which we can meet the net-zero target. One is to reduce demand, and the other is to reduce supply. The sensible way is to reduce demand. If you reduce supply ahead of reducing demand, the price goes up, as we are seeing now; the oil and gas companies make undue profits, which will upset you all greatly, and I do not particularly want to see them make undue profits either; and it will cause difficulties to households in the short term, which is what we are experiencing. I hope that we will see more realistic analysis than we have heard so far.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I want to ask the noble Lord something before he sits down. I bow to his greater understanding of the finances behind pricing of oil. Maybe he can explain why, in 2019, for each barrel of oil the UK received so much less—$1.72 in tax—than Norway’s more than $21 per barrel of oil. On the supply and demand side, would he not say that it is not one or the other? We need to do both if we are to get to net zero in the timeframes that we have set ourselves.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I have not looked at the profitability per barrel and the tax paid per barrel, but I used to do that every day 40 years ago. I assume that it is because our fields are now running down, whereas the Norwegian fields are still far from fully mature. As far as I know, Norway’s tax regime is not hugely different from our own; it was not then. On the question of whether we have to restrict supply as well as restricting demand, no, we do not. If you reduce demand and anyone has supply available and no market for it, they lose money—that is their problem—but if you reduce supply without reducing demand, you raise prices, increase profits to the industry and increase costs to ordinary households.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Before the noble Lord sits down, can I ask him how he thinks demand could be reduced?
Lord Lilley (Con)
You could do all sorts of things to reduce demand for oil and gas—requiring people to spend thousands of pounds on shifting from gas to electric heat pumps, that sort of thing. The noble Baroness knows the answer to her own question.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, can we have a little order? Also, I need to remind future speakers that the Minister needs to be speaking by 3.47 pm.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Offord, to his place and look forward to hearing his—
Baroness Boycott (CB)
Sorry, I thought you were just interrupting the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, to make a point. I, also, welcome the new Minister and look forward to his maiden speech. I much enjoyed the exchange just now. It is worth pointing out that the largest single group at the climate talks was the 503 oil executives, spending the most amount of money to show off their wares.
I shall lay out a few facts. We are, undoubtedly, one of the most profitable countries in the world for oil and gas companies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, pointed out. Since the Paris agreement, the UK has granted tax relief of £10 billion. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, would say that that is just par for the course, but we are trying to aim for a zero-carbon world.
During an exchange last week, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, posed the question about where we get our oil and gas from, and he asked
“do we use oil and gas products we generate … or do we get them from Russia or Saudi Arabia?”.—[Official Report, 11/1/2022; col. 964.]
The facts are that, in 2020, 54% of the demand for natural gas was met by domestic production, 32% from pipeline flows from Norway and the remainder met mainly by LNG cargoes from Qatar at 12%, the US at 7% and Russia only 3%.
On the climate compatibility checkpoint, according to E3G, the UK continental shelf is a mature, high-cost basin with declining reserves. The basin is oil weighted, with gas making up only 30% of remaining reserves. Even if those reserves could be brought online at speed, the UK would still be exposed to international gas markets and their inherent price volatility. To be clear, we do not need to drill anymore for our domestic consumption. The reason why the gas price is currently so high is because of how the global markets work. Companies that extract it just sell it to the highest bidder, and a lot of the gas extracted from our sites is sold to Europe, rather than being used domestically, even if we have a need for it. The argument that, if we drill more, we will have more, is an oversimplification of the issue. It will mean only that producers sell more and, due to the low domestic tax rates, there will be negligible difference to the Treasury. Our Government would have to directly intervene to ensure that domestically produced gas is used in the UK, and to date we have made no signals that that is something we are willing to do.
On the other part of this question, lobbying and licensing, the Times reported that Kwasi Kwarteng met industry officials in the days after COP to urge them to keep drilling in the North Sea, despite what was actually said in Glasgow. How is that compatible with our goal? Afterwards, on 20 December, the Government published a consultation on a new climate compatibility checkpoint, which will govern our new licensing rounds. Did the Government meet oil and gas executives to discuss this consultation before it went public? Surely, they should see that at the same time, everyone should be allowed to feed into the general discussion. For example, the document states that, for the purpose of licensing, it is not practical to separate oil from gas and that
“we understand that, for many fields, a mix of hydrocarbons (both gas and oil) is usually found, and it can be difficult to predict which reservoir fluids will be encountered at licensing stage. For that reason, we have rejected the idea that oil and gas could be licensed separately”.
However, it is not clear how or why the Government have reached that decision. We know that Cambo, for example, is—or, one hopes, was, in the past tense—going to be drilled for oil. So how have the Government got there?
This is an important point because, although we can expect continued domestic demand for gas during any transition, we already export 80% of our oil, so further extraction is just adding to global supply rather than quenching domestic needs. If that was discussed before the checkpoint was published, there is a clear conflict of interest. Oil and gas companies would obviously be in favour of tying them together, as to separate them would affect their profits. So while it is welcome that we have a consultation proposing consideration of production gaps, other parts of it raise suspicion that this is a tick-box in green-washing. “Consideration” is a really weak word.
Finally, on the current energy costs and the cost-of-living crisis, it is likely to become dire without government intervention, but I challenge the argument that this is because we do not have enough fossil fuels to burn. It is because we do not have enough renewable energy. If there had not been an effective moratorium on onshore wind since 2015, for example, our bills would now be lower. Bills are not high because of the green levies; they have been decreasing, and account for about 3% of gas bills. They are high because, as other noble Lords have mentioned, we have uninsulated homes. If the green homes grant had been better implemented, people would have lower bills. It is easy to see high bills and think that we need more of the product that is causing it but, actually, we need to quicken our transition away from it. Fossil fuels have always been volatile, whereas renewables have consistently become cheaper as well as better.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for stepping in. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Offord, to his place and look forward to his maiden speech. I cannot help noting, although I am very pleased we heard his point of view, that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, was allowed to speak having arrived about three minutes late, when only recently in a debate on the nuclear industry, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, was refused the opportunity to speak despite arriving at almost exactly the same time. There cannot be one rule for members of the governing party and another for members of the Opposition. I hope the Government Whips will take note of that. However, I am glad we heard from the noble Lord.
The urgent need for the North Sea industry is not further subsidies or contradictory policy-making by a Government who on the one hand say that they are in favour of net zero and on the other continue to endorse the maximum economic recovery policy. The urgent need for the North Sea industry is transition. If there are tax breaks and subsidies, they must be directed at transitioning that skilled workforce out of the oil and gas industry, because that fossil fuel industry is coming to an end. That is what will happen. It is the reality, and those who think they are standing up for workers in the industry by backing further drilling are simply sending people down a blind alley.
As I mentioned during debate on the Financial Services Bill, the last part of my title—Lord Oates of Denby Grange—is taken from a colliery in Yorkshire where my grandfather and uncles all worked as coal miners. I have great respect for the people who work in the fossil fuel industry; they powered our industry and heated our homes, often working in very dangerous circumstances. However, we know what happened to the coal industry: it came to a dead stop. There was no proper transition and, as a result, communities were stranded and suffered massive social and economic deprivation that remains to this day.
Let us not pretend we are doing any favours if we go down this maximum economic recovery route and keep going until the dead stop happens. It will happen; as the International Energy Agency has stated, we cannot burn all the reserves we have already identified if we are to have any hope of keeping to 1.5 degrees. We cannot do it. The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is that we have this stuff so let us burn it. If everybody else takes the same view, we will get nowhere near even 2 degrees but go far beyond it. That is not a problem for the noble Lord, because these things do not matter to him. He thinks the whole net-zero thing is ridiculous and absurd, and he calls anyone who stands against that an eco-fanatic. But, for those of us who care about it, there must be a logical policy.
The Government have set ambitious targets for net zero which the Liberal Democrats welcome. However, it is no good having those targets if your policy tools contradict them. Maximum economic recovery in the North Sea, and the tax subsidies, absolutely do that. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said that the reserves in the North Sea should be used for the benefit of the people. The benefit of the people would be to keep those reserves where they are, not to burn them. It would certainly be to the benefit of future generations.
Lord Lilley (Con)
How long—or how shortly—does the noble Lord think it will be before we cease to use gas, both to heat homes and as the natural source of power to deal with the intermittency from renewables? Most people think we will still be using it in 30 years’ time.
Lord Oates (LD)
We have to transition away from using it by 2050, or at least without abatement of it. Exploiting the North Sea resources when we are trying to lead the world is not going to work. It is rank hypocrisy, and it is deeply damaging.
Let me just pick up on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, made about energy costs. It is a complete fallacy that the way to reduce energy costs is by scrapping all the green levies, as the GWPF and other people want to do. If you look at what happened to energy costs between 2010 and 2020, in terms of the bills that people paid, you see that total household expenditure on energy fell. It did not rise. One of the reasons it fell was because the levies funded insulation of properties and measures to reduce consumption. Consumption of gas and electricity fell significantly during that time. In fact, the eco levies save people money.
I understand the position of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, of not worrying about net zero. I do not understand the Government’s position, because they claim to worry about net zero but take actions that show the exact opposite.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I take this opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and to wish him all the best with his maiden speech. As a fairly new Member, a maiden speech being made in these circumstances is a first for me. It feels as though he is jumping in at the deep end here, but I look forward to hearing his contribution. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for securing the debate.
Time is extraordinarily limited. We have so much to discuss in this hour and we are not going to do it, so I do not want to cover too many of the points that have already been made, other than to recognise the seriousness of the examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others gave of where things are going seriously wrong in the whole debate about what a subsidy is. The Government might have a technical definition of a subsidy, but there are certainly other means of getting money where it needs to be which distort the market, lower the price and make fossil fuels a much more positive option than they need to be.
In the limited time I have, I want to turn first to the very nature of the debate. Running through all this is transparency. We have so many examples of where undue influence is being brought to bear, and that lack of transparency in so many areas of public life now is becoming a real scandal. This debate fits very well into that area.
The other important area I want to dwell on is the whole issue of the plan that we need to get to net zero. It is all very well talking about where we will be in 2050 and what it will look like, but we need to know what it will look like in 2022 or 2025. The year 2030 is obviously recognised as a critical date, but the plan really is missing. For example, I took part in the debate on the Subsidy Control Bill last night. Where is the plan which says that if we are investing and giving subsidies to any range of interests, the recipients have to demonstrate that they are joining the collective effort towards net zero? I am afraid that the absence of this in government policy and the lack of costing of what it is actually going to take gives me deep cause for concern.
This is against the backdrop of the impact not only on the planet but on individual households and families, the cost of living crisis, the choices that people are making on whether they heat their homes or feed their kids, and the crisis we saw with the break in deliveries from the shortage of drivers. It is that lack of resilience and forward planning, and the whole issue of security that is wrapped around it, that I do not believe the Government are really taking seriously enough.
The other issue is the obligations that we came to from COP 26, and there is another dimension to this. Although the outcomes were lauded as some degree of success, there was watering down from other countries across the world. While we must look at local imperatives, we need also to look at the global imperatives. We have some really important discussions about trade deals coming up. Are we making sure that those countries that failed to sign up fully to COP 26 will receive our full influence?
We can talk about government action, but the Government need to empower those out there who can actually make the difference. I draw your Lordships’ attention, if they have not already seen it, to the letter from the CBI, the TUC and different green groups to the Government suggesting a really practical way forward. Until almost a year ago, I was the leader of the second largest local authority in the country, and there is a lack of powers going down to local level, where the differences can be made by reducing energy consumption and through planning and transport powers—all the things that can really make the difference and reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.
I highlight one of the asks from the letter, which is that the Government establish a cross-government initiative to review all those policy areas. Is the Minister aware that such a cross-government initiative has been set up? Do different departments of government talk to each other and say, “If this department does that, the knock-on impact will be something else”? Those are the collective actions that everyone at local level has been charged with taking for many years, but the Government are falling down.
I urge real focus to go to those areas that can assist this agenda. The clock is well and truly ticking. As the noble Baroness said, the debate about corruption is absolutely at the top of the agenda. What is being done to address what we collectively are doing to enable our dependency on fossil fuels, and all the corruption to which it leads? When will we see a real road map to achieving net zero by, at the very latest, 2050?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour to be here to make the final contribution to this short debate today. As a newly appointed Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, here I am making my maiden speech in this House.
Allow me to start by thanking noble Lords for the great welcome you have given me in this place, my supporters—my noble friends Lord Kirkham and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean—Black Rod, the Clerk and, especially, the doorkeepers, who look with great amusement at me as I wander around the place in circles. I should also give special thanks to my mentor and noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, and to my Whip and noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, for sharing their invaluable knowledge of the workings of your Lordships’ House. We have an important debate to discuss this afternoon, but just before I do, I think it is customary on these occasions to spend a little moment on some personal matters, so let me get those out of the way now.
I was born in a modest but homely tenement at 33 Bank Street in Greenock, an industrial town west of Glasgow on the Firth of Clyde. I was educated at my local schools, Ardgowan Primary and Greenock Academy, and I got a first-class education for free. I am not the first alumnus of that school to be associated with this House; my noble friend Lady Goldie of Bishopton was a distinguished head girl of Greenock Academy, as indeed was the wife of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley. I was dismayed when my old school was closed in 2011, having been founded in 1855. It was determined by the local council that, with Inverclyde depopulating post industrialisation, the schools needed to go down from eight to six, and it was decided that it conferred too great an advantage on the students who went to that school to study there, so it was closed. Surely that is an egregious example of levelling down in Scotland, and it was a personal motivator for me in joining this Government to support the levelling-up agenda.
So, why Lord Offord of Garvel? If you walk down Bank Street, where I was born, past the Wellpark to my local parish church, the mighty Mid Kirk, and cross the road past the magnificent Georgian Custom House on the Clyde, and then turn right along the river, you will come to Garvel Point. Garvel has long been a landmark in Greenock because it is where the deep water is located, and it was originally a safe harbour for the fishing fleets before the first industrial revolution transformed the town into a thriving trading port and shipbuilding hub. Greenock’s most famous son is the inventor and engineer James Watt, and the dock which bears his name today remains in use at Garvel Point. In fact, two of the three dry docks on the Clyde were located at Garvel, and a recent renovation project has repurposed one into the award-winning Beacon theatre.
That brings me neatly to the Question before the Committee today. One of my first ministerial duties was to participate in COP 26 in Glasgow—how fitting that the world came back to the Clyde to seek new solutions to this climate emergency. What a tremendous achievement of the UK’s two-year presidency it was to increase the global commitment to net zero from 30% to 90% of world emissions. Some say that the UK has a limited role to play in climate change as we account for only 1% of world emissions. Yet COP 26 proves that our leadership still counts, because we can demonstrate that it is possible simultaneously to grow our economy while cutting our emissions.
This is what I learned at COP 26: we have the capital, the brains and the political will to meet the climate challenge. Participating in the Net Zero Technology Centre forum—funded by the Aberdeen City Region Deal—I was so encouraged to hear technologists from the oil and gas sector in Aberdeen collaborating with Houston, Calgary, Perth and Canberra as they repurposed their assets and people into low-carbon energy sources.
How gratifying it is that Scotland has such a prominent and world-leading role to play in rebalancing the UK’s energy programme to net zero by 2050. We have all the natural resources and the existing infrastructure, plus the scientists, engineers and skilled workforce required to build a balanced scorecard in energy. Scotland contributes 60% of UK wind and 40% of the 160,000 highly skilled jobs already working in energy across the UK. This is called punching above our weight in a UK where we contribute just 8% of the population but 33% of the geography.
However, we must remember that a key word in this climate debate, already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, is “transition”, and that it is to net zero, not to zero carbon. Some 35% of our energy needs in 2050 will still come from carbon; today it is 75%, so that will be a massive reduction—more than halved. It would be foolhardy and irresponsible to ditch our world-class oil and gas sector in the North Sea to increase our carbon footprint by importing, whether from Russia—bad—or Qatar: good.
The North Sea Transition Deal is an exemplar in the G7 of a domestic oil and gas industry working in partnership with government to ensure that net zero is met by 2050. The noble Baroness asked what milestones we have along the way. By 2030, the cash flow generated in oil and gas will contribute £15 billion of long-term investment into new energy technologies. On the transition of jobs, by 2030 the UK offshore energy sector in total will increase from 160,000 to 200,000 jobs, of which two-thirds will be in low-carbon energy sources.
One of my new responsibilities is the North Sea Transition Deal, and in the last forum we had there were presentations from oil and gas companies, talking about how their target for 2025 is 50:50 investment of capex and renewables to get a return on capital in the region of 12%. Speaking as a businessman, I asked what percentage return on capital you get on each side of the scorecard. There was a certain amount of silence, because it emerged that renewables on their own do not return on capital at this point. Therefore, it is essential for the cash flow made in oil and gas to be reinvested to produce renewables. We will get transition to renewables only if it is a managed transition, using cash flow from carbon as it reduces to invest in renewables. That is absolutely essential. The two go hand in hand; you cannot have one without the other.
I will directly answer some of the questions posed in this debate, turning first to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I must say, this is a baptism of fire. I do not recognise the country she mentioned as corrupt. Maybe if I am here long enough that will emerge for me, but I do not recognise that to be the case where we are today. The financing of parties seems to be a whole new debate and perhaps can be done another time. I am on the record as saying that parties should not be financed by taxpayers. However they are financed, as long as it is transparent and legal I suggest that it is fine, but perhaps we should park that for another debate at another time.
The key thing that has come through here is the use of language and the fact that the word “subsidy” is so misused. My noble friend Lord Lilley made it very clear that as a matter of business practice, whichever industry you are in, it is entirely legitimate to off-set costs against revenues. In this sector, because the lead times are so long there is quite often a mismatch, and therefore money flows back and forwards. Since the oil and gas industry began in this country, total tax revenues of £360 billion have been received, and £33 billion in the last 10 years alone, but along the way you will see ebb and flow: money in, money back.
Tax relief is a normal part of the corporate tax system. Genuine costs and injuries such as the safe removal of infrastructure at the end of a field’s life are not a subsidy but a tax deduction and quite often, in certain cases, money flows back to the Treasury. Therefore, it is just inaccurate—perhaps self-serving—to use an emotive word such as “subsidy” when something is regulated by our own accountancy businesses, as is the case for all sectors. I push back firmly on the idea that we subsidise. We are against subsidies in this country and generally want to have free trade.
As I said before, on the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, it is essential that we transition jobs to renewables if we are to have two-thirds of jobs in low-carbon renewables. We have discovered from a study at Robert Gordon University that the onshore and offshore skills we currently have in carbon are absolutely essential to the new world. For example, when it comes to carbon storage, floating oil fields, et cetera, we currently have very transferable skills in the oil and gas industry and will transition them into renewables.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, talked about his heritage in coal mining. We know exactly how that feels in Scotland; 40 years ago we closed the mines and started importing coal. What on earth is the point of that? Are we really going to make the same mistake again 40 years later, when we have a vibrant industry with 160,000 workers?
We are talking about a new Britain here, are we not? This is a new global Britain—a high-production, high-wage economy, with highly skilled jobs. This is an exemplar of highly skilled jobs in this country that we should be very proud of. Certainly, from a Scottish perspective, this is our second biggest industry, after fisheries, food and drink. It is one of our five exemplars in the UK, and we need to protect it.
Before I come to the end of my piece, the answer to the Question—for Hansard—is that the Government do not give subsidies to fossil fuel companies. The licences are awarded by an independent regulator, the Oil and Gas Authority, within the framework of achieving net zero. In fact, on Tuesday the High Court dismissed a case brought by climate activists that the regulator was giving unlawful subsidies.
The OGA is an independent regulator. Its staff are classified as public servants and are subject to rigorous standards and codes. Therefore I would say that the oil and gas industry is subject to a robust, multilayered regulatory system, which is independent and transparent, and there is no
“undue influence from outside interests”.
In closing this debate, let me be quite clear that the Government do not believe that decarbonising our economy means shutting the oil and gas industry, as has been said in this Room. We certainly do not believe in demonising a world-leading industry with the sort of intemperate language used by Patrick Harvie, Green Minister in the Scottish Government, who recently said that only those on the “hard right” would support oil and gas extraction. What an insult to the 160,000 workers in this vital sector. A broad range of stakeholders, from entrepreneur Sir Ian Wood to the GMB trade union, have warned politicians against creating an adverse investment environment for this vital sector. There is nothing just or fair about that, and it would set us back on the road to net zero.
Lord Lilley (Con)
May I intervene, on behalf of the Committee, to congratulate the Minister on his maiden speech? It was an eloquent, fascinating account of his background. His is a welcome Scottish voice in this House, and he will bring his experience of developing industries and business to our debates. We look forward eagerly to hearing his future contributions to our debates.
E-scooters
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for further regulating the use of e-scooters given the safety concerns about their use.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
The time limit is one hour.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel and to be able to complement him on a powerful and stimulating maiden speech. However, we are here now to ask the Government what plans they have for further regulating the use of e-scooters, given the safety concerns about their use. I feel I have won the jackpot, as this is my first QSD from the Back Benches since 2013.
E-scooters are a recent invention. Like most inventions, they potentially offer some people real advantages. Also like most inventions, they have downsides. The trick, if possible, is to maximise the advantages and minimise the disadvantages.
Unfortunately, developments so far have not been encouraging. There can be no dispute that the law is being widely flouted—never a good place to start. I believe, and the Commons Library note confirms this, that riding e-scooters on public roads is illegal, unless authorised as part of an official experiment. Let us call them Boris scooters so that people listening to the debate can understand that arrangement. I believe that many of the e-scooters that I see on roads are not part of any such experiment. Moreover, unfortunately, it is difficult for the public to identify vehicles that do not qualify—especially on a dark night. In any event, we all know from personal experience that e-scooters are often ridden on pavements, which is illegal in any circumstances. Yet there seem to be limited attempts to enforce the law.
The point, of course, is that heavy objects moving at the equivalent of a fast running speed are potentially dangerous to the public, especially to pedestrians. It is a pity that these problems have been allowed to develop without any attempt by the Government to set appropriate limits and boundaries. Speaking more personally, I live in fear of my life from e-scooters as I walk home from here. If I were disabled, I would be much more worried. The pavements have become a jungle. This has become an urgent matter; something must be done, and done quickly.
I have two possible approaches which I should like us to debate. The first would be radical: namely, to learn from the experience of motorbikes and prohibit the sale of e-scooters in the UK. Arguably, we should have banned motorbikes long ago. They give much pleasure to a small group of people, and my uncle rode one into his 80s. However, they are very dangerous and have been instrumental in the deaths of thousands of young people in the UK. What a waste! If they were invented today, I do not believe we would allow motorbikes to be used on public roads.
For the same reason, although they do not go quite as fast, there is a case for stopping the use of e-scooters on public roads—and doing so now, before more damage is done and more lives lost. There have been 258 collisions in London alone during the first six months of 2021, according to the police, and I am sure this is an underestimate, as many collisions go unreported.
As I said, the risk to the disabled is especially worrying, and I note that organisations representing them, especially the blind, very much agree. I will be particularly interested to see what my noble friends Lord Holmes and Lord Shinkwin have to say on the matter: it is great to see them here today. I add that e-scooters also generate fear for the citizen, both about being injured and being the subject of e-scooter-based mugging.
These are serious disadvantages to e-scooters, and we will hear of others, but we need also to consider the benefits, which might be economic, environmental, or from increased convenience. Taking the economic aspect first, I recognise that new consumer goods can usher in economic growth—think fridges and hoovers in the 1930s, and washing machines and dishwashers in later waves. Bicycles were actually a very early example. So far, the production of e-scooters appears to generate no economic benefit for the UK—they are predominantly manufactured overseas—so benefit must be found, if at all, elsewhere in the economic cycle, and it is difficult to see where it might lie.
We also need to understand what they will replace. There seems very little evidence that they will replace cars. The main users are young people, and they will be substituting for bicycles, including electric bikes, non-electric scooters and public transport. All of these are less dangerous, and cycling is better for your health.
Some have argued that there are environmental advantages. Interestingly, the House of Commons report suggests this may not be the case, at least at present, essentially because there is a high carbon cost in manufacturing, as well as in obtaining the rare minerals increasingly needed in large quantities for batteries. Nor can I see that, overall, there is a net benefit in convenience for society as a whole. Although I am normally free market in my approach, as colleagues will know, I think a ban would be worth considering.
However, there is a second approach, which is to regulate, provide appropriate powers and penalties, and give the police or local and transport authorities the resources needed to enforce the law. The regulations would need to cover the safety and design of the scooters so that they are less dangerous and, in particular, do not catch fire, which has been an issue mentioned in a number of recent media reports. The design might include lights and sounds. The regulations would also need to cover speed limits, mandatory helmet wearing—given their speed—perhaps a simple driving test, and compulsory insurance. We would also need existing laws to be properly enforced. If this approach were chosen, a proper costed impact assessment would be illuminating.
Perhaps my noble friend could advise on what basis current e-scooter provision has been permitted under law and whether we presently have the subordinate powers to make legislation of the sort I have outlined—or something like it—or whether a new Bill would be needed for that purpose.
I have called this debate today because I am very worried by the present situation. We are drifting into a bad place and failing to act as scooter numbers mushroom, making action needed to control them much more difficult. There are various trials going on, of course, and I look forward to an update on the results.
I am grateful to so many fellow Peers for speaking today in last business. It is because we are all looking to the Government for a response and for action on this matter. I very much look forward to the reply from my noble friend, and I hope she will surprise me.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and I congratulate her on securing this timely and incredibly important debate. I echo her congratulations to our noble friend Lord Offord on his excellent maiden speech as well.
How can e-scooters be part of a public realm of transport which is inclusive by design? How can they fit within anything which could be seen as safe? Just today, a report mentioned the fire risks and trip hazards when they are abandoned on pavements. The riders themselves, often young men or boys from lower socioeconomic groups, can be injured and sometimes tragically killed. How is this something that any Government would seek to support in any of our key policy areas?
We are told that e-scooters are part of micro-mobility, and I can see some potential use cases there. But I ask my noble friend how e-scooters can help with people’s health? How can they help other pedestrians, who—as is suggested by the word “pedestrian”—are trying to walk on the pavement? For me, that is an impossibility and a clear and present danger, but they would be a trip hazard for anybody. The bays. often sited on pavements, take up crucial pedestrian space as well.
E-scooters are often seen as a piece of fun equipment or something to enjoy. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, there are many analogies to the motorbike when it first emerged. But when we look at the engineering, is it not possible that even at that primary production level, e-scooters are dangerous by design? They are seen as a bit of fun, yet our A&E departments up and down the country tell a very different story. A&E doctors and nurses are having to deal with the consequences of e-scooter accidents at a time when they are already exhausted and under pressure, not least through the pandemic.
When we go to the international comparator, why would we push forward on e-scooters when nations such as Denmark, Spain, France and Israel, and the state of Texas and others, are looking to retreat, if not heavily regulate, control and withdraw from the e-scooter experiment? The law is clear, but it is not being enforced. What advice are police forces being given, and have they the resources to enforce the current legal situation?
I agree with my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe that, if not an outright ban, this is certainly time for serious consideration and a pause in what is happening. I say that for myself, as a blind person, but I say it also for all people who could become casualties of this e-scooter free-for-all. At least we need the current law to be fully enforced; we then absolutely need to look at further and closer regulation. If something is not safe, if it is not inclusive design, what part can it possibly have in a society for everybody? If we truly believe in levelling up and building back better, what place the e-scooter?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend, who spoke so eloquently, and I congratulate my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe on securing this debate. Can the Minister confirm at the outset that, in fact, e-scooters are banned on public land unless they are part of the control trial? If they are part of the control trial, we are told by the Met Office—sorry, by the Metropolitan Police; the Met Office is for forecasting of a different kind—that e-scooters are classed as a motor vehicle under the Road Traffic Act 1988. Can she tell us how many driving licences for this motorised vehicle have been issued as part of the control trials, since their commencement?
In the Minister’s view, and that of the department, does she consider that perhaps those driving an e-scooter need to realise that they have to be over the age of 16, in possession of a driving licence, and should not be riding one without insurance cover, which would lead to a £100 fine? Can she tell us how many e-scooters have been confiscated that are privately owned but being driven on public land, and how many fines have been imposed? I am sure that my noble friend shares my concern at the statistics on the sheer volume of accidents provided in the Library note. Her own department, in November 2021, records 882 accidents involving e-scooters, with 173 involving other vehicles, and 931 casualties in accidents involving e-scooters, of which there were three deaths, all of whom were e-scooter drivers. In that, 253 were seriously injured, while 675 were slightly injured.
How are the Government going to respond to the recommendations of the Association of British Insurers, which sides with my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe? If there is going to be a regulatory framework for e-scooters, it said:
“We strongly oppose the implementation of any regulatory framework that could result in liabilities falling onto the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) and premium-paying motorists without a corresponding insurance requirement for these vehicles; or some form of contribution towards the MIB’s liabilities from users of”
e-scooters and related devices. Without such a recommendation being implemented, we will all have to pay extra insurance premiums to cover the third-party liability. Do the Government intend to ensure mandatory use of helmets for e-scooter users?
My noble friend told me in reply to a Question last year that the current framework is that a person can be fined up to £300, or get six points on their licence, or their e-scooters could be impounded. I end where I began by asking her to tell us who is responsible for enforcement, how many e-scooters have been seized and how many driving licences have been endorsed and fines have been issued? What expectation can we have of better enforcement in future?
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for calling this debate. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for taking part not as an expert but as someone who lives in London and has become concerned and, to be honest, bemused by the rise of e-scooters on our streets. What a meteoric rise it is; having been properly introduced only in 2018, the companies that make these vehicles are now raising millions of pounds in venture capital, a clear indication that the market for e-scooters is not slowing down any time soon.
Despite their envisaged popularity, I am still unclear whom these scooters are aimed at or what they are for. The argument you hear most is about the environmental benefits—how they will contribute to greener, cleaner spaces in our towns and cities—but is this really the case? As my noble friend just said, and according to the Royal Society of Chemistry, unless e-scooters are used daily for many years and replace a car, their impact on the environment is ultimately damaging, with high carbon costs in manufacture and mining of raw materials.
Is it realistic to suppose that e-scooters can and will replace a private car? According to recent figures by Lime, one of the companies taking part in the Government’s trial, the average journey is two kilometres—a journey that would take about 20 minutes to walk. Is it not more likely that, far from replacing car journeys, e-scooters are in fact replacing walking or cycling, both of which are far more environmentally friendly? The evidence on this is still sketchy, but the Government’s evaluation is looking at usage. If it shows that e-scooters are replacing not car journeys but active travel—a key aim of the Department for Transport—can my noble friend the Minister say whether this will be a consideration in deciding how and whether to regulate further usage? When the House of Commons Transport Committee recommended legalising their use, it also said
“it would be counter-productive if an uptake in e-scooters … primarily replaced people undertaking more active and healthy forms of travel.”
The evaluation report will also look at the user demographic of e-scooters, which will make interesting reading. The 2020 Kantar report into public attitudes revealed that there was no obvious target market for e-scooters. Some people did not feel that they were relevant for their personal transport needs. Others thought that they were not suitable for their age or stage in life—for example, because they had children. In that case, why are there so many of them?
I refer today only to London, as that is my experience. In my area, where e-scooters are supposedly banned, they seem to be the exclusive preserve, as mentioned, of 20-something men, used at all hours of the day and night, often without much care and attention. Invariably, they tend to be illegally ridden private scooters. As one online writer said when test-driving the legally trialled version:
“At a tenner an hour, or a fiver for a 25-minute run, they’re hardly a cheap commute … but restricted to the roads and banned from most parks, they’re not much of a leisure activity either.”
If we are not sure who or what they are for and the green argument is by no means clear, are these scooters really worth all the associated risks—the many rider accidents and the danger to pedestrians? I would say no. However, as I suspect they are here to stay, can my noble friend say whether the Government will take account of the experience of other European cities? Stockholm is now halving its number of e-scooters from 23,000 to 12,000, Copenhagen has banned them in the city centre and Oslo has capped the number at 8,000. Arguably, these cities are all far more suited to their use than London but, having let the genie out of the bottle, even they are having to grapple with the consequences. I fear it will not be long before we have to do the same.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for giving us the opportunity to debate such an important subject. I also thank her for her empathy: something which has been notably lacking from the Government’s approach.
The primary duty of the state is to protect the citizen. I take no pleasure in saying that that fundamental duty has not been honoured by the Government in respect of the introduction of e-scooters, and the scant regard they have shown for the safety of the UK’s 14.1 million disabled people.
Perhaps I could illustrate the point. Just over two hours ago, a wheelchair user was propelling themselves over a zebra crossing not a mile from your Lordships’ House. A cyclist was approaching from a distance, so the wheelchair user stopped to allow time for the cyclist to stop. They did not stop. Instead, they swerved at the last moment, within inches of hitting me, leaving me feeling very unsafe in my wheelchair. I made it to the House in one piece—just. Sadly, that is not a rare incident. Barely a day goes by when I do not feel threatened by e-scooter users, e-cyclists or pedal cyclists, sometimes all three and often as not on the pavement.
I know that the incident I described is not specific to the regulation of e-scooters, but it is symptomatic of the culture of impunity that this Government have allowed to take hold and, sadly, seem to be doing nothing to prevent. About 23,000 pedestrians are killed or injured in police-reported road accidents every year in Britain. Of course, disabled people are at greater risk—as I explained from my experience this afternoon. The problem is that the laws designed to protect us are not being abided by; nor are e-scooter users, cyclists or e-cyclists being required to abide by them.
My noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond mentioned A&E cases. Just this Tuesday, a pedestrian was struck by an e-scooter in Hackney; she may be left with life-changing injuries. Freedom of information requests have shown that ambulance call-outs to incidents involving e-scooters jumped from 75 in 2019 to 480 in the first eight months of 2021, an increase of 540%. Yet the Metropolitan Police will reportedly now no longer routinely seize e-scooters being ridden illegally on public roads, instead confiscating them only from repeat offenders.
The UK’s disabled citizens need to hear that the Government recognise that their primary duty to protect the citizen applies equally to them. The Government have a duty to ensure that those who break the law by cycling on the pavement, going through red lights, failing to stop at zebra crossings or breaking the speed limit, outside your Lordships’ House, are punished—fined and named and shamed—so that disabled pedestrians can leave their homes without fear of being injured, whether by an e-scooter, e-bike or bicycle.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I was rather taken with my noble friend Lady Sanderson’s questions: what are e-scooters for and who are they for? In the absence of answers to those questions, I am even more inspired by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s bold desire for a complete ban. But my starting position is that, if the Government want to retain and expand a commercial e-scooter rental scheme, they must ensure that the current rules and regulations are enforced and be prepared to regulate yet further.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, I am very concerned by the evidence of accidents provided in the Library briefing note, and indeed other anecdotal evidence supplied by correspondence to those of us taking part today. Please do not take my pragmatic approach to the continuation of commercial schemes as support for them; I just find it hard to imagine that the Government are going to revoke them. Because of that, my bigger concern is if they are to relax the law and make e-scooters permissible on public roads. As we have already heard from my noble friends this afternoon, I fear that is happening by stealth because of inertia in enforcing the current laws. As my noble friends have said, people are using these e-scooters with impunity and doing so in a reckless and often unsafe way.
I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could provide an update today on police enforcement, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh has already requested, around things such as confiscation. I would also be grateful if she were able, after today’s debate, to provide us in writing with what guidance has been provided to the police to inform how they enforce the law. I hope she will forgive my scepticism on the police’s enthusiasm to do what is required of them.
To illustrate my scepticism, the other week I observed a police officer open a gate to the Parliamentary Estate to allow a private e-scooter rider to exit. On seeing this, I said to the police officer, “That’s illegal; why didn’t you stop him?”, and the response I received was, “You’d think I could”. I said, “You’re the police; I think you should”. That was the end of the conversation.
It is bad enough when pedestrians and other road users see e-scooters flouting the law, but it provokes anger when the same e-scooters travel at speeds that exceed the limits or breach traffic lights. So the Government also need to bear in mind the frustrations of road users for whom driving is critical to their job or direct source of income, such as black cab or taxi drivers, delivery drivers and tradesmen such as plumbers, electricians and so on—the people who are struggling to enter cities to provide essential services to the people who live here or to other businesses because of increasing traffic regulations or traffic schemes. Beyond what I have already asked, my question to the Minister is: what is the department doing actively to consult the kind of users I have just described about the current e-scooter pilot schemes and the way in which private users are flouting the law? It is worth bearing in mind that the people I have just described are not the sort of people who respond to consultations, so are the Government in contact with trade bodies and firms—Pimlico Plumbers, or whatever? Can the Minister also provide us with an update on the evidence of the involvement of e-scooters in other crimes?
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing this debate, which has been monopolised by seven Conservative Back-Benchers. It is a very timely debate because, as we have discovered, we are trying to identify the correct new regime for e-scooters. I will take a slightly more nuanced view than some of my noble friends—and I do so as a former Secretary of State for Transport.
Where I entirely agree with everything that has been said is that we need to minimise this interregnum where there is widespread illegal use of e-scooters, alongside legal use of rented e-scooters. We have listened to the questions. What do the police do? Do they intervene only if an e-scooter is being driven dangerously? Do they stop somebody and warn them that it is illegal? Do they confiscate the e-bike? Or do they simply turn a blind eye, in which case the law is brought into disrepute? We need clarity on the final regime as soon as possible, and then enforcement.
On 24 December, the Government said they were extending several trial areas to November this year. They then have to evaluate the scheme and legislate, so what is the earliest date by which we can have a final regime, which we can then begin to enforce? What is the target date?
As for what the regime should look like, I have travelled to Westminster on two wheels for the best part of 50 years—although the wheels have a longer circumference than those on an e-scooter—so I am aware of both the benefits and the hazards of two wheels. The benefits are the speed, the certainty of the length of journey, the flexibility, the economy and the scope for replacing car use. Nottingham launched a trial zone for e-scooters in October, which saw 1 million rides in the first 12 months. The latest citizen research by the TIER project showed that 17.3% of rides replaced car journeys.
On the other hand, we have heard about the risks and hazards, not just to the rider, which can be reduced by high-visibility clothing and observing the Highway Code, but, more importantly, to other road users and pedestrians. There is no excuse whatever for riding on pavements or for anti-social behaviour.
Looking ahead, my view is that we should live with the e-scooter. While I understand all the problems outlined by my noble friends, I am not in favour of banning them. If we are to ban activities—something deeply un-Conservative—I would choose smoking before e-scootering. A ban would be an unnecessary barrier to the promotion of an individual and popular mobility scheme, which can complement public and private transport.
Having said that, I agree with my noble friends that we need parameters. I have been overtaken by someone on an e-scooter going twice as fast as the 15 mph that I do on my bike. The Dualtron e-scooter has an advertised top speed of 68 mph. I favour a maximum speed limit, as with e-bikes.
On licensing, at the moment you do not need a driving licence for an e-bike; you just have to be 14. But you do need one, even if provisional, to ride a rented e-scooter legally, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh said. If we have licences for one, we should have them for the other, and on balance I am not in favour of driving licences for either e-scooters or e-bikes. If you need a licence for an e-bike with a top speed of 15 mph, what about bicycles that go twice as fast? If we are to make it compulsory for e-scooter riders, capped at 15 mph, to wear helmets, what is the logic of exempting cyclists, who can go much faster?
Finally, I think you should be able to buy e-scooters and not have to rent them—but why are nearly all of them made in China? I understand why the trials are restricted to rental projects, but I see no reason for subsequent restrictions, which would constrain the beginning and end point of each journey because you have to dock the scooter. Owned scooters are less likely to be left around, and are likely to be ridden more carefully. I hope that these points might be taken on board.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving us this excellent opportunity, and I am surprised to find that I agree with most of the views that have been put forward. In my view, the Department for Transport is treating the 31 pilot projects rather as the Prime Minister is treating the Sue Gray report—as an excuse for lack of action, while the evidence mounts and everyone can see there is a big problem.
I start from a position of positively welcoming e-scooters, as another potential alternative to cars. They are not exactly active travel because they require very little effort, but they are emission-free at the point of use. Evidence shows that they tend to be used by young people for short journeys and are often used just for fun. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
One problem is that the Government have set up so many very long-term pilot projects that a large number of people think that all e-scooters are now legal. Another is that there is virtually no police enforcement for illegally used e-scooters outside the pilot areas, while retailers are selling hundreds of thousands of them—mostly with no warning that they are illegal on roads and pavements. It is estimated that there are now at least 1 million privately owned e-scooters across the UK. In addition, there are 23,000 available to rent.
That is a very large experiment from which to draw conclusions, and there is now plenty of evidence of the damage that the current wild west approach is doing. Nine e-scooter riders died last year, and a study in Bristol showed that only 7% of riders were wearing helmets. Indeed, the pilot schemes do not require helmet wearing. There were 951 casualties involving e-scooters, 732 of which were the riders—one as young as four—and 253 seriously injured people.
The Government seem paralysed into inaction while the rest of the world is taking this issue on. To give a snapshot of good ideas, in Germany, for instance, you have to be insured, with an annual insurance sticker; you must have lights, brakes, reflectors and a bell; and there is a 20 kilometre per hour maximum speed. France, Austria, Belgium, Finland, Portugal and Sweden have all based their rules on those that apply to cycling. Spain, the Netherlands, Ireland, Italy and Australia all seem to have rules. There are a host of ways in which sensible regulations can be introduced and technology can come to the rescue—for example, using geo-fencing to exclude them.
Despite all that regulation, however, very serious issues remain. The impact on people with disabilities has been very well outlined. I have lost more than 70% of my hearing, and I am told that they make a swishing sound as they come along, but I cannot hear that. The hire and charging model for e-scooters is not as environmentally friendly as you might think, because the batteries have a very short lifespan, and a time-based hiring system encourages people to speed to get to the end of their journey by the end of their hire time. There is also a serious and major fire risk, which has been revealed only this week, with a house destroyed by a fire due to the combustion of an e-scooter battery. So, I ask the Minister to please address that issue if she does not do anything else.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, as has been pointed out, this is one debate where the Minister gets more grief from behind her than from in front of her. I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for securing and opening this debate.
As has been said, there are concerns about the use of e-scooters and the safety implications. I do not know whether the figures I have are anywhere near accurate, but as I understand it, in London there were 258 reported collisions in the first six months of last year, and no doubt a very much larger number of near-misses, which will have caused distress and fear for other road users—but, more concerningly, for pedestrians and wheelchair users, who do not expect to be mown down while on our pavements.
The Royal National Institute of Blind People has warned that e-scooters could pose dangers for blind people and has asked the Government whether they should each make a recognisable sound to alert pedestrians. E-scooters may be used on public roads in the UK only if they are part of a trial in a select number of areas. As part of these trials, e-scooters may be unlocked using a smartphone app and are limited, as I understand it, to 15 miles per hour and certain geographical locations. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said, it has been reported that these trials are to be extended to late 2022.
Despite being currently illegal to use outside of private land, the Times estimates that there may be 750,000 personally owned e-scooters, which suggests either a lot of illegal use or a lot of suitable private land, or both. Due to reports of fires and the obvious threat to safety, e-scooters have been banned from Transport for London services and premises. Some 3,600 e-scooters were apparently seized by the Met police between January and November of last year, and any owners wanting to retrieve them must pay £150 and a £10 daily storage charge. I am not quite sure what else happens to them.
As I understand it—I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong—in October 2020, the House of Commons Transport Select Committee recommended the legalisation of e-scooters. We cannot uninvent the technology, but as the question asked by this debate indicates, we need to ensure that there are relevant and appropriate regulations in place to address the safety concerns over the use of e-scooters if their general use is to be given the go-ahead. If they can provide a safe, relatively cheap and environmentally friendly method of transport, e-scooters could have much to offer, particularly if they encourage some people who use their car for shorter journeys in our towns and cities to switch their mode of transport.
I certainly hope that, in their response today, the Government will be able to update us on the progress with the trials and any emerging findings, particularly in relation to safety, and any initial thoughts they have on the scope of regulations that would be required in connection with the use of e-scooters. It would also be helpful to know whether they are or are not contemplating their legal use on pavements, and if they are satisfied that enough is being done—taking into account the cuts in police numbers over the past decade—to enforce the current law in relation to the illegal use of personally owned e-scooters on our public roads and pavements. Finally, what engagement do the Government currently have with the RNIB and other relevant organisations representing disabled people as part of the e-scooter trials?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for securing this debate, and I thank all my Conservative colleagues for turning up as well. In my five years as a Minister, I think this is the strongest showing, proportionately, that I have ever had. There were many valuable contributions from all Benches, and I am truly grateful.
Transport is always changing and, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe noted, battery e-scooters are a relatively recent invention, although there was an internal combustion engine scooter around 100 years ago—there is a fantastic photograph of one—so maybe they will just be a fad. Who knows? But the Government believe that, with the right regulations, there is potential for significant economic, social and environmental benefits from light, zero-emission vehicles such as e-scooters. E-scooters can help to reduce emissions, as noted by a number of noble Lords. They can reduce carbon, of course, and nitrogen oxide emissions and particulates, which both contribute to poor air quality. If users switch from cars, there will be environmental benefits—but if they switch from cycling or walking, I agree that there will not be, although there may be other benefits.
Mode shift will be a key part of our considerations going forward, as was asked about by my noble friend Lady Sanderson. Based on examples from across Europe, in a pre-Covid context, we could expect modal shift to e-scooters to be around one-third from walking, one-third from public transport, 15% to 20% from car, and 10% from cycling, with around 2% for new trips. As with all emerging technologies, however, we must be mindful of the risks, and noble Lords have set out many valid concerns today. We want to ensure a measured and evidence-based approach to our policy decisions, which is of course why we are running controlled trials. They are trials, not experiments.
Let me share a few facts about the trials from the period from July 2020 to the end of November. More than 66,000 e-scooters have been approved in 31 trials across 54 areas. At the end of November, there were 23,141 e-scooters available to rent across all areas. Roughly 13 million trips had been taken, over 18.5 million miles travelled, and roughly 3 million hours ridden in total across the rental trials. To date, around a million individual users have rented an e-scooter as part of the trials.
The current regulations for trials limit e-scooters to a maximum speed of 15 and a half miles an hour and a maximum power of 5 watts. Users must have a full or provisional driving licence, and the licence is confirmed by the trial operator. While helmets are not mandatory, we, local areas and trial operators recommend that people use them. E-scooters are able to use cycle lanes, but I can confirm that it is absolutely illegal to use them on pavements. All trial e-scooters have insurance, provided by the rental operator and confirmed by the department.
The department also sets out minimum vehicle standards, including a requirement to have lights and a horn or bell to warn other road users, plus there are data-sharing requirements. All users in trials are provided with training via apps, and in some cases in person, to instruct them on safe and considerate riding. Most trial areas have dedicated parking bays and/or docking stations to help to reduce the risks caused by additional street clutter, a point made by my noble friend Lord Shinkwin.
Where problems with trials have arisen—and I agree that there have been issues—we have worked very quickly to nip them in the bud. For example, we increased the level of driving-licence checks that trial operators must perform when a new user signs up and put systems in place to ensure that you cannot get multiple sign-ups from a single driving licence.
In October 2021, the trials were extended to the end of this November. This will allow us to continue to fill data gaps and make some small changes; for example, we have introduced uniform ID plates to ensure that we can recognise e-scooters and make sure that the trials are as safe and well run as possible. We have been monitoring and evaluating the trials all the way through. It is a very fast-moving area; substantial additional data has been generated since we received an interim report last June. This has come from direct data feeds from the trial operators and survey data from, and interviews and focus groups with, e-scooter users and residents, including those whose income derives from being able to get out and about—that might be local tradespeople or taxi drivers. The final report for the trials is due relatively soon and will include all this information; we are just figuring out how to compile and present it to provide a comprehensive picture of the evidence. We hope to publish it in spring.
I have heard from many noble Lords—and, to a certain extent, I agree—that enforcement is absolutely essential. We know there are occasions where trial e-scooters are not used as they should be. We also know there are similar offences and penalties we can use for privately owned e-scooters in the public arena. For the avoidance of doubt, for my noble friend Lady McIntosh and all noble Lords, it is absolutely illegal to use a private e-scooter on public land or a public highway. These offences are available to both trial and private e-scooter users and derived from the same offences as for motor vehicles. This means they might include driving on the pavement, which applies to those using a trial e-scooter and those naughtily using a private one; not having insurance or a driving licence—this would mostly apply to people with a private e-scooter; dangerous driving, which applies to everyone; and drink-driving. E-scooter users either illegally using a private scooter in the public domain or committing an offence on a rented e-scooter, such as riding on a pavement, can be fined up to £300 and have six points put on their driving licence, and the e-scooter can be impounded.
My noble friend Lord Holmes asked whether police forces have had advice. We have issued guidelines to the National Police Chiefs’ Council on general safety and rules for trial e-scooter users. We have also made sure that, before local authorities apply to set up for a trial, we need to see evidence that they have engaged with the local police to ensure that they are well aware of what is about to happen in the area. However, the level of enforcement within each local police force is an operational matter for that police force—I suggest, in consultation with the police and crime commissioner. Many noble Lords in London may wish to write to the Mayor of London about that. Local authorities and trial operators are also required to demonstrate that the vehicles used are distinctive so that you can tell they are legal, trial e-scooters that are allowed rather than privately owned e-scooters that are not.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked for further information on confiscations and fines and the use of e-scooters in other crimes. I will follow up with whatever I can find in a letter. We are aware that a large number of people have purchased an e-scooter in recent years. That is why we believe it is so important that we conduct these very large trials to gather evidence so that we can inform future policy and any legislative basis for e-scooter users in future.
It is not illegal to sell an e-scooter. However, there are protections for the general public: under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, retailers need to give sufficient information about goods and services to consumers. These regulations carry criminal penalties, so they can be used against individual retailers. Ministers from my department have written to retailers twice, in December 2018 and again in July 2021, to set out their concerns that retailers were not providing this clear, visible and consistent information that we need.
On the safety of e-scooters themselves—are these things actually safe?—at the moment there is not enough reliable international evidence on e-scooter safety to compare them accurately with other modes. Evidence to date suggests that the rates of injuries are broadly similar when compared with pedal cycles. The overall change in safety risk will depend on the mode shift. If we see a mode shift from cars, that would of course be a positive thing, because cars can be a significantly more dangerous mode, particularly for other road users. We will look at the impact on safety overall and in the context of the sorts of journeys that are carried out on e-scooters.
We are aware that a small number of fire incidents have involved e-scooters in recent months and we are liaising with the trial operators and participating local authorities. We are also co-ordinating with a number of government departments, including the Office for Product Safety & Standards, to ensure that such matters are considered as part of regulations around any electric vehicle entering the UK.
My noble friends Lord Holmes and Lord Shinkwin both eloquently raised the challenge of e-scooters to disabled people, and of course we are well aware that there can be challenges, although to some other disabled people they may be of benefit. We particularly take the point about those who are blind or visually impaired and therefore unable to see the scooters coming. We have had numerous discussions with disability groups and we require that all e-scooters have a horn or bell so that they can make others aware. We will continue to engage with groups that we have good relationships with, including the RNIB. We want e-scooters to be as inclusive by design as possible. Indeed, all transport should be inclusive by design. I was horrified to hear about what happened to my noble friend Lord Shinkwin earlier today.
We have looked at other European countries and we will take heed of the way that they have taken forward e-scooters. For the time being we have a regulatory landscape that we put in in June 2020 following a consultation. What does that look like for the future? I know that noble Lords are looking for certainty from me but I cannot provide that today. We are still gathering and analysing the data. We want a safe, proportionate and flexible regulatory framework if we decide that is our way forward. We have been gathering plenty of evidence: we have responses to the future of transport regulatory review, and there is further stakeholder engagement to do, including state engagement with the insurance industry. No decision has been taken about the future legal status of e-scooters. Much as I would like to give a response to my noble friend Lord Young about timelines, I cannot at this moment in time. However, if they are to be legalised, we would consider removing them from the motor vehicle category and instead creating a new bespoke category of vehicles with the appropriate regulatory regime in place.
I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords—
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, to go back to her answer on the legislative framework, would that require primary legislation to ban or regulate? Would it be necessary to have another Bill? I am very sorry that we cannot have a timeline, but it would be good to know the legislative framework.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Of course, that will depend on what we decide to do. One might assume that there would be a route with a primary framework that would set out this new type of vehicle. We have to remember that this stuff moves quickly, and one could have a system where you would have a framework from which you would then regulate to ensure that things can be adjusted as technology moves on. As I say, that is just one of many options, as I am sure the noble Baroness understands.
House of Lords
Ukraine and Russia: Ceasefire
Lord Browne of Ladyton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) reports that on 21 December 2021 Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, expressed his intention to call for a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council early in 2022, and (2) that on 22 December 2021 negotiators from the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe and the governments of Ukraine and Russia agreed to restore a full ceasefire between the Ukrainian government forces and separatists in eastern Ukraine.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Government welcomed the 12 January NATO-Russia Council as an opportunity to discuss ways in which to build transparency and address mutual concerns. The only way forward is for Russia to de-escalate and engage in meaningful discussions. We welcome the strong determination by participants in the Trilateral Contact Group to fully adhere to the July 2020 strengthened ceasefire. We hope that this will reduce violence in eastern Ukraine and contribute to improved conditions for efforts towards de-escalating regional tensions.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The NATO-Russia Council has met and, more generally, we have had Ministerial Statements on the diplomacy to prevent future conflict. I regret, however, that the Government continue to be studiedly silent in respect of the seven-year continuing conflict in eastern Ukraine. The agreed restoration of a full ceasefire has made little difference. Yesterday, there were 58 ceasefire violations, including four explosions. Enhanced monitoring and verification capability for the OSCE special monitoring mission and military- to-military crisis management dialogue through the OSCE Trilateral Contact Group are essential to restore, consolidate and strengthen the ceasefire, to reduce casualties and to provide, perhaps, a foundation for progress in other areas. What steps are we taking to support such objectives?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right. The OSCE special monitoring missions are essential and the UK is one of the leading contributors to those. They report on the security situation on the ground in eastern Ukraine and obviously we continue to call on all sides to uphold the strengthened ceasefire.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, Russia is isolated and lacks any meaningful international alliances. If there has been one misstep by President Putin in recent weeks, it is probably blaming, or seeking to blame, NATO aggression. It has unified NATO members. However, NATO is not the only western alliance. There is also the informal military alliance of the Northern Group, which includes non-NATO members such as Sweden and Finland, which I see the Secretary of State for Defence has visited in recent weeks. Can my noble friend update me on what conversations there have been with those countries in trying to deter the Russian threat?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid that I cannot update my noble friend on that specific question but he is right to point out that NATO is a defensive alliance. Its purpose is to protect member states and every country that joins undertakes to uphold its principles and policies. That includes the commitment that the alliance does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia, as reaffirmed at the Brussels summit.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has said that the only way forward is for Russia to de-escalate. It may be the best way forward but is certainly not the only way forward, particularly according to President Biden. Does the Minister agree that should Russia intervene militarily in Ukraine it would not be a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing but something that would cast a long shadow over wider European security, that Russia responds only to strength and determination, and that the best way for us to express that is through NATO, a revivification of NATO and, in particular, a strengthening of the transatlantic links within NATO?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for pointing that out. I entirely agree with him. As I said, NATO offers the best opportunity for us to help Russia de-escalate this and he is quite right.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, what assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the statement by Sergey Lavrov two days ago that the OSCE used to convene parties on an equal basis but it is now simply a defender of western interests? What impact does that have on our conversations with the Russians?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am sorry but I shall have to write to the right reverend Prelate on that. I have not seen Sergey Lavrov’s statement.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, I was the first chairman of the NATO-Russia Council. I am delighted that it is now back in session and that there are now opportunities to both disagree and agree in that forum. I hope it is kept alive and that the United Kingdom does so. However, is it not a matter of some regret that this country, our country, was not involved in the original Normandy process, which led to the Minsk agreement? Is it not now time for Her Majesty’s Government to consider getting back into the Normandy process and being part of the exercise that perhaps will produce a diplomatic solution?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I cannot say whether or not that is a matter of regret. Of course, the UK Government continue to work closely with all allies and that includes the Normandy group.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, what practical steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to work with our European and NATO partners to try to persuade Russia to de-escalate? There is no point in simply saying that Russia must de-escalate. There need to be provisions to make that something that Russia sees as desirable.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness is quite right. We are co-ordinating with allies and partners to maximise the impact of all this. The Prime Minister spoke to the French, German, Italian and US leaders in December. In December, the G7 Foreign Ministers and the High Representative of the EU issued a joint statement calling on Russia to de-escalate. The Foreign Secretary raised concerns on the situation at the NATO Foreign Ministers’ meeting at the end of last year and at the OSCE Ministerial Council in December. She has engaged bilaterally with NATO and EU allies, including the US, Canada, Germany, Poland, Slovakia and Turkey. NATO Foreign Ministers spoke on 7 January. I am sorry that it is a long list but there is an awful lot of engagement.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I want to pick up the last point. Last week, I made it clear that this Parliament had a clear and unified message on Ukraine and the threat from Russia. I welcome the initiatives from the Government, but can the Minister tell us a bit more about not only the diplomatic initiatives, which are vital to ensuring de-escalation, but the efforts to work in concert with our allies in terms of any sanctions that might be needed? It is important that we are prepared to act immediately with our allies, including the United States, if that is necessary.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. A Russian incursion into Ukraine would be a major strategic mistake. There should be no doubt that Russian military aggression will be met with strength, including massive economic consequences through co-ordinated—I stress that word—economic sanctions by allies and partners, targeting Russian financial transactions, assets and individuals.
Obviously, it would be inappropriate to speculate on future sanctions designations, but I refer the noble Lord back to the sanctions that were imposed in response to Russia’s actions in Crimea. The UK took action against Russia for its illegal annexation of Crimea; that was in co-ordination with our international partners. We worked closely with the EU, the US, Australia and Canada to impose costs on those facilitating Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol through sanctions. I imagine that this template will be deployed again in future.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, if the only way forward is for Russia to de-escalate but Russia will not do so, clearly other ways forward of a non-conventional kind will have to be found. Can we be assured that we are fully engaged with these and with other democracies—not just in NATO and the European zone but the powerful nations of Asia, since this is a global issue? If war were to break out, it would affect not just Europe and the West but the entire planet.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord is completely right. As I just referred to, when it came to the sanctions regime imposed over the annexation of Crimea, the response was global, including from Australia and so on. We are engaging and listening to the world.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, is it not obvious that, as long as Russia maintains its position of wanting a guarantee that NATO will not allow Ukraine to join, NATO maintains its position that that is a non-starter, and their discussions are confined to those two propositions, there is no diplomatic solution? We all know, although we may not want to admit it, that there is no military solution to this problem either. That is why, as my noble friend said, it is a tragedy that we were not involved in the Normandy talks. What consideration have the Government given to other alternatives? One example is that of Austria in the 1950s, which, through negotiation, was guaranteed an independent, neutral status. There is also the position of Finland, which has had a relatively open border with Russia for many years. What consideration has been given to these other alternatives?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and defer to his extensive knowledge of defence matters. I repeat what I said earlier: NATO is very much a defensive alliance. However, we have not really talked about Ukraine in this. I note that, in a debate on Tuesday, my noble friend Lady Goldie said:
“In terms of the agreements it has reached in its own right, and legitimately so, with the international community and NATO, it has positions which should be respected.”—[Official Report, 18/1/22; col. 1617.]
Food and Farming: Supply Issues
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the supply chain issues in the food and farming sector identified by the National Farmers’ Union and the British Retail Consortium at the Food Security Summit on 14 December 2021; and what plans they have to prepare a long-term solution to these issues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. The UK’s food industry sectors operate highly resilient supply chains, as demonstrated throughout the Covid-19 response. The Government have well-established ways of working with the industry on preparedness for, and in response to, issues with the potential to cause disruption to food supply chains. Our production-to-supply ratio remains high in comparison with historical levels: we produce 60% of all the food we need. These figures have changed little over the past 20 years.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. We are facing a serious supply chain crisis, with an estimated 500,000 labour shortages and rising costs. There is a shortage of seasonal workers to pick our fruit and veg and of lorry drivers to deliver them. There is a lack of produce on supermarket shelves and a rise in imports as a result. We are seeing a mass cull of pigs because we have no butchers, while the import of pork products from the EU is rising. Does the Minister accept that short-term fixes and three-month temporary visas will not solve the labour shortage? We need a long-term plan for this. Does he also accept that we should have a target of at least 60% food self-sufficiency in the UK, and that this should be underpinned by specific support to put British farmers and businesses first?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness is of course right that we should not be concerned just with short-term fixes. However, if she will forgive me, I think that she is a little out of date. We have agreed, through to 2024, to allow 30,000 people to come from outside the UK into this country under the seasonal workers scheme. In addition, we have people under the EU settled status. We are also trying to encourage more domestic employment and innovation through automation. All these things will ease the pressures that existed last year—and still exist, to an extent—but the situation is better. We are not complacent and it will continue to improve.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us what action is being taken to improve the facilities available to long-distance and other delivery drivers on the motorway network? Together with the long hours that these drivers spend waiting, the lack of facilities is a main concern in the recruitment process. It is not about pay and, in some ways, it is not about quotas for foreigners to come in. The concern is about the facilities.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. We have worked with other departments, including the Department for Transport and the Home Office, in the development of our scheme to encourage more drivers, to ease the difficulties caused mainly by the pandemic but also by our withdrawal from the EU, which have resulted in a shortage of drivers. The noble Lord is right: it is the quality of their lives that we need to look at, alongside all the generous incentives that we are giving to encourage people to come here and fill this gap.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, what measures are the Government taking to prevent the scene of edible vegetables being ploughed in rather than being harvested and entering the food chain?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend raises an important point. Vegetable producers will always try to produce slightly more than the demand because that is better than being short of supply to the next stage of the food chain. Every year, some vegetables are ploughed in, but it has increased recently, for reasons that we are all aware of. We are very mindful of encouraging a much more stable supply chain. That is why we have increased the number of drivers and brought in a variety of different skill sets through the seasonal workers scheme. We hope that this problem will ease in the coming months.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, looking more widely in the farming industry, what are the Government doing to help farmers reduce their methane emissions, which are an extremely large source of carbon emissions?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We are taking a number of measures to tackle this pernicious greenhouse gas. It operates very differently from other greenhouse gases; it has a much more damaging short-term effect but is a short-term problem. There is enormous progress in technologies around what we feed cattle and in husbandry. We can offset the effects of methane through other measures we are taking through our environmental land management schemes.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I speak as the chair of Feeding Britain. All the problems that noble Lords have referred to are impacting on the price of food. One measure we have is the Healthy Start vouchers, and I congratulate the Government on increasing this; it really helps poor families. However, we have just learned that the uptake is only just over 51%. What are the Government doing to extend the reach of these things? Will they consider making an opt-in scheme the de facto way of becoming a member of this important scheme which helps low-income families?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will relay the suggestion to colleagues in the Government. The Healthy Start food vouchers scheme, which has been raised from £3.10 to £4.25, should be seen as part of a wider array of measures that we are providing to target families on lower incomes. The £500 million household support fund is another example, but the noble Baroness makes a very important point which I will relay.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my horticultural interests. What success has the department had in negotiations with the Home Office on extending temporary worker schemes to non-edible horticultural products—for example, nursery trees, nursery products, flowers, and other such things?
Lord Benyon (Con)
This is an incredibly important part of our economy, particularly our rural economy. I am delighted that we have managed to get the addition of ornamental and other non-food-related measures as part of the seasonal worker scheme, and it is quite right that we do so. But we are reliant on the industry telling us in advance, as much as it can, about where it thinks the pressures will come from in the future. We have the ability to increase the £30,000 by another £10,000, and we want to encourage much more training in the sector.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the national food strategy has met with criticism from ITV, which is keen to continue advertising fast, unhealthy food. Given the rise in obesity and diabetes, why are the Government not promoting local, healthily grown fruit and vegetables which can then go into the free school meals system, to both improve the health of our children and support our farmers?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, we are. We want to encourage local food chains to operate more effectively; it is of course much healthier for the environment and the quality of the food is better. We want to disrupt highly centralised food chains where we can. We also want to make sure that we are encouraging as stable a food chain system as we can, because we rely on the just-in-time measures to get food from the field to the plate.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, we are seeing a rise in the number of farm shops up and down the country, but what is the department doing to ensure that large supermarkets sell British products?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The best pressure on supermarkets does not necessarily come from finger-wagging of the Government or measures from Ministers but from the customer. We must encourage people to shop locally; for example, if they are concerned about the effects of their diet on climate change, eating grass-fed, locally produced meat means they are probably doing more to help the environment than when buying products that have been brought from the other side of the world, under circumstances that are much below our standards in this country.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, wishes to speak virtually. I think this would be a convenient moment to hear from him.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, how do the new trade deals with Australia and New Zealand help with the aims of maintaining Britain’s food production self-sufficiency level at 60% and creating an environment for farm and food businesses to thrive and compete in the coming years?
Lord Benyon (Con)
There is good news on a variety of different measures in trade deals, not least on the point of the noble Lord’s question. We are about to see the end of the ban on UK lamb being sold to the United States. Free trade is important; it benefits us all. We have incorporated into the two trade deals that the noble Lord talked about the absolute determination to protect our standards of animal welfare and environmental protection. That is the best protection that we can give to the high-quality produce that our farmers produce in this country.
Devolved Governments: Public Expenditure
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the devolved governments regarding monitoring of their public expenditure.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock—who is self-isolating, according to law—and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is responsible for the Treasury’s relationship with the devolved Administrations and last met their Finance Ministers a week ago, on 12 January. The devolved Administrations provide the Treasury with information on their spending every month to support the management of the public finances. It is for the devolved Administrations to allocate their Barnett-based funding across their devolved responsibilities. They are accountable to their respective legislatures for their decisions.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is aware, as he says, of the billions of pounds that are transferred to the Scottish Government under what is known as the Barnett consequentials, but does he know where it is spent? The Scottish Government seem remarkably reluctant to tell the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people how that money is spent. What does he think of the fact that, at the moment, the Scottish Government are starving Scottish local authorities of money, thereby forcing them either to put up council taxes or cut services?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, as I said in my opening Answer, the Scottish Government are accountable to their electorate and to the Treasury here for how they spend their money. They have had a very generous settlement in the SR—an additional £8.7 billion went to the devolved Administrations, of which £4.6 billion per year has gone to Scotland. I encourage the noble Lord to keep his scrutiny up.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend realise that there has been a series of major financial scandals in Scotland, such as two ferries for the price of five? There is a whole series of examples of complete mismanagement of public money, and there seems to be no consequence. Following on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, about the Barnett formula, the Scottish Government have the gall to blame Westminster for cuts in the health service where they fail to spend the Barnett consequentials on health that they have been given. There is no transparency. Surely the Treasury has a responsibility to ensure that transparency is given.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that any wastage in government is extremely distressing, certainly to me. In October of last year, we reached an agreement with the Scottish Government to jointly commission an independent report covering the block grant adjustment arrangements. The independent report will inform a broader review of the Scottish Government’s fiscal framework later this year.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, the Scottish Government have a Minister for consular affairs. Does the Minister believe that this is consistent with the delivery of devolution? Following up on the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would the Scottish Government not better serve the people of Scotland if they concentrated on protecting and delivering public services and developing a strong economy, instead of fiddling in a way that has had a disastrous effect on the economy and job losses?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, in 2005, the then Labour Government agreed to allow the Scottish Government to have international development involvement. To my knowledge, they are involved in three countries—Rwanda, Malawi and Zambia. I can only come back to my earlier point that it is for the Scottish electorate to decide whether that is a good use of public funds.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the discussions which are happening and the report that will come later this year. Will it be clear that there will be more transparency on how the money is spent? It is not the money going from here but how the money is spent in Scotland that is so opaque.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, we are certainly keen to see more transparency. At the moment, the Treasury receives monthly reports on expenditure—but I accept that more transparency would be useful.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, the Scottish Government have a unit committed to making the case—or more correctly, preparing the case—for independence. Does the Minister think that that is a proper expenditure for the people of the United Kingdom to have to bear?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, as someone who is very against the independence movement in Scotland, I would agree. We have also to accept that an increasing amount of revenue is raised in Scotland for the Scottish Government. For example, from 2017-18 Scottish income tax rates were entirely devolved, and all revenues from Scottish income tax are retained. Likewise, in 2015, stamp duty was devolved to the Scottish Government. So there is a rising percentage that is in their own gift and I can only assume that some of that is being used for what is, in my view, a mistaken approach.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I might take a moment to remind the House that, as well as Scotland, Wales has a devolved Government. I believe transparency there is of an order of which we could all be proud. I want to pick up on a point made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, during a Question about the Barnett formula. In his opinion—and in the opinion of many of us—it needs to be looked at in a radically new way for a new age. The Answer from the Dispatch Box yesterday was, quite simply, that there was no prospect of such a review. Is the Minister today, who is refreshingly different from the Minister yesterday, of the same mind?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I think we all know that the Barnett formula was something of a fudge, put together many years ago. It is an extremely complicated thing to try to unravel. We know that the amount of funding that goes to individual citizens is favourable to the devolved regions, but the formula is not necessarily satisfactory—so I would encourage the noble Lord to keep up his campaign to push for a review.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, given the Minister’s dislike of waste in government, could he comment on the article earlier this month by the Comptroller of the National Audit Office, Gareth Davies? He criticised the lack of any formal process for evaluating both the efficiency and delivery of cross-government projects. He said that there was very little information on
“what difference is made by the billions”
spent by government. What does the Minister think of that?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I think the noble Baroness makes a very good point. I will suggest to the relevant Ministers that the work on the fiscal framework, announced in October, includes a review of the points raised.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, building on that point, is not the problem that the UK Government are in no position to lecture others—whether it is the National Audit Office, influential think tanks or others? We regularly hear of cases where Ministers have exercised poor judgment when spending public funds. The most recent example was the quiet announcement that the Treasury does not intend to chase down an estimated £4.3 billion fraudulently claimed from coronavirus support schemes. Why did the Government not listen to Labour’s warning about potential fraud earlier in the pandemic, and why will family units have to pay the price for the actions of fraudsters through upcoming tax increases?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
The noble Lord raises a very good point. I believe that I will be coming back on Monday to deal with an Urgent Question on this specific subject. I would remind noble Lords that these schemes were stood up at an incredibly fast pace to protect the productive capacity of this country. Yes, the fraud losses are extremely frustrating but, if we had not got that money to the business community as quickly as we did, we would have seen a lot more damage to our economy.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, to what extent do the UK Government make clear in the publicity in the devolved Administrations the amounts of money that come from the UK Government to those Administrations?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My noble and learned friend is right that we need to remind Scottish citizens that a great deal of the funding that goes into Scotland comes from here. We now have a Minister for the Union, Michael Gove, and his job is to keep reminding all the devolved Administrations that we are one union. A very senior civil servant, Sue Gray—of whom some of you may have heard—is the Permanent Secretary for the Union, and we are encouraging engagement at, for example, local authority level on a much more frequent basis.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, we are talking about the spending of government money, and I congratulate the Government on the fact that, on 26 December 2021, although it did not get a lot of press, they decided to spend £360 million—for which I and others had been asking—on homeless prevention grants, so that people were not put out because they had lost their job due to Covid-19.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his support. Homelessness is one of society’s most complicated problems and we are very committed to trying to minimise it.
Pesticides: Thiamethoxam
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential negative impacts of their decision to permit the use of the pesticide thiamethoxam for sugar beet cultivation on (1) bee health, and (2) the spread of antimicrobial resistance; and what steps they will take to mitigate the concerns raised by their scientific advisors about the use of this pesticide.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have given emergency authorisation for the use of thiamethoxam in 2022 to protect sugar beet from viruses. The environmental assessment identified potential risks to bees and the authorisation imposes strict restrictions to minimise these risks. In particular, the pesticide will be used only if, according to independent modelling, the predicted level of virus is at or above 19% of the national crop. No flowering crop may be planted within 32 months of sugar beet having been treated.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. I have no doubt that other Peers will address the absolutely crucial issue of bees. This relates also to our second Question on food security.
In the light of the Lancet article yesterday which showed that, in 2019, 1.3 million people around the world died as a result of antimicrobial resistance, I will focus on the second part of my Question. It is, perhaps, the first time this has been mentioned in the House. Increasing numbers of studies, and increasing understanding, show that cross-resistance can develop. Bacteria exposed to pesticides can end up being resistant to drugs they have never even experienced. Will the Minister commit to going back to his department and speaking to officials to ensure that sufficient account is being taken of this when all pesticides are considered?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I, my department and others mind desperately about antimicrobial resistance. When I saw the wording of the Question, I looked into the matter in some detail. The neonicotinoid we are talking about is an insecticide that is not found to be causally related to antimicrobial resistance. I will look at the Lancet article about which the noble Baroness spoke and I will take her points back. The Government take AMR extremely seriously and we are coming forward with a number of different ideas to tackle this problem.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend take this opportunity to update the House on alternative forms of production of sugar beet, such as organic and the work done by LEAF and Rothamsted institute in this regard?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Excellent work is being done and I do not think we will be having this conversation in future years. I very much hope we will not. Enormous amounts are being done through integrated pest management. There is a variety of different breeding techniques and husbandry for sugar beet. So I very much hope that there will be no need for derogations in future.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the health of the bee population in this country, and what contingency plans will they consider if it is deteriorating?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The Government have a pollinator strategy and work closely with the bee sector to make sure that our policies reflect the needs of pollinators right across the piece. The sustainable farming incentive, the key part of our ELMS announcement, has an integrated pest management part. These are the sorts of policy products that have come out of work that we are doing to enhance bee health across the country.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that this policy is making a mockery of the promise in the Environment Act to replace the use of toxic pesticides with integrated pest management techniques and low-toxicity solutions? How does the decision comply with the current need under law for pesticide products to have no unacceptable effects on the environment, when this clearly does?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I do not take that view, because we have massively increased the condition that we have applied this year. Last year, the derogation was not used because it did not reach of the already high 9%; we have raised that to 19% this year. There is a wider factor. If there is a catastrophic loss of yield, that sugar will have to come from other countries. Spain, France, Belgium and other EU countries have derogations with very few of the conditions that we have applied. We could damage our sugar infrastructure in this country—the factories that we need to produce sugar for our own population—and export the problem to countries that do not have our conditions and our determination to move towards integrated pest management.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, wishes to speak virtually. It is a good time to call him now.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, Countryside Online tells us that the sugar beet industry supports 9,500 jobs, produces half of the UK’s sugar and is environmentally friendly because of the low number of miles beet travels from farm to processing plant to consumer. Mr Gove supported a total ban on neonicotinoids when he was Environment Secretary because they harm populations of bees and other pollinators. By allowing their use now, why are the Government breaking their promise to maintain high environmental standards?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, we are not. We are in exceptional circumstances, responding to an exceptional problem. We are imposing very high standards. I repeat that no flowering crop may be planted on land where this seed dressing is used within 32 months of treated sugar beet. There is a minimal effect on pollinators because sugar beet is not harvested after it has flowered. The other conditions that we have applied might well mean that it will not be used this year.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The key thing is getting the balance between risk and benefit right. Can he confirm that this will be taken on sound scientific grounds and not on emotional grounds? The decision obviously has to be taken at the last possible moment. Does he foresee any logistical problems, as raised in the second Question today, with getting the chemical to the seed producers in time so that the decision can be made at the last possible moment?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I have not heard of any logistical problems. If the weather continues to be cold, it is unlikely that the threshold will be reached and that this will be required at all. If there is a large increase in aphids, which are the vector of this yellows virus disease, measures are already in place, but there is a very good chance that it will not be required to be used at all.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, another study published in the Journal of Applied Ecology says that small gardens are at least as important as large ones for conserving bees and other pollinators. Are the Government doing anything to encourage small urban gardens?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We provide advice to beekeepers and work with trade bodies and organisations across the country, whether urban or rural. I take this opportunity to applaud the work of the London Pollinator Project, which, as the noble Baroness identified, is of enormous benefit to pollinators in urban areas. It is not just urban gardens; it can be in quite highly built-up urban areas.
Lord Trees (CB)
Does the noble Lord agree that plant breeding, facilitated by the novel gene editing technologies that are available now, is the progressive way to avoid chemical pesticide use?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. A lot of work is being done in organisations across the country—Rothamsted has been mentioned, but also the Roslin Institute and others in Scotland and England—where we are seeing the possibility of great advances, not through GMOs but through using and perhaps accelerating existing plant breeding techniques that will make these kinds of conversations seem very out of date.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lady Whitaker, the noble Lord talked about the benefits of urban gardens for pollinators. Of course, he is absolutely right. One of the reasons why pollinators are very well served by urban gardens is that there is the great diversity of plant life there compared with, say, mass agricultural areas. However, there is a problem with people concreting over urban garden space. Could he say what the Government are doing in conjunction with local authorities to discourage this practice? It is a problem not only for pollinators but for flood management.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness’s last point is the one where the Government can be most effective, particularly with building regulations and planning policy. It is hard to say to a householder, “You cannot get rid of a 10 by 10 lawn outside your house”, but we can design in green infrastructure. An enormous amount of work is going on across government to try to make sure that we are greening our planning policies and urban infrastructure to address precisely the point that she raises.
Building Safety Bill
Thursday 20th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Building Safety Act 2022 View all Building Safety Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 19 January 2022 - large print - (19 Jan 2022)
Migrant Crossings: Role of the Military
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, following the failure of the Government to deal with record numbers of migrants crossing the channel and, rightly, the abandonment of policies such as wave machines and sonic booms, the Navy has been called in. What is the plan? Where are the ships that the Navy will use coming from? Can the Minister also clarify whether the awful policy of pushback is still government policy? The Minister in the other place said only on Monday that pushback remains an option, as has the Home Secretary, but the MoD apparently says that it is not. Who is in control? What is the policy? Although a naval ship might not be used, what about a Border Force vessel? This is a real crisis involving real people, with only a confused policy coming from the Government. It is time that they got a grip.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
I am very proud to stand at this Dispatch Box once again on behalf of the MoD to say that, once again, the MoD is going to contribute to dealing with a crisis that has perplexed not just the Government and the Opposition but the public: the danger being encountered by migrants who seek to come to this country and have been enduring appalling experiences while trying to cross the channel. That is why the MoD’s primary role will be to ensure that all vessels transporting illegal migrants across the channel are intercepted before or as they land, preventing the uncontrolled arrival of migrants on UK shores. The Armed Forces will not be engaged in turnaround tactics.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister was asked if she could say where the ships were coming from. Could she answer that question and say whether the MoD will be funding this new activity or whether the Home Office will pick up the tab, and whether there are not also diplomatic routes to try to ensure that, instead of stopping boats landing, the boats never leave the departing shores?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important series of points. She is right, for example, that the Home Office and the FCDO will continue the primary discussion with France on the diplomatic front. I reassure her that Defence has a very strong relationship with France, and we regularly speak to our counterparts on matters of mutual interest. Funding will be required for this, and the Ministry of Defence is currently computing costs with a view to informing discussions with the Treasury. On the assets, we are dealing with a domestic situation in largely indigenous waters, and therefore the capabilities that Defence makes available for this task will be assets already permanently assigned and committed to operations in home waters, including offshore patrol vessels, P2000s and RHIBs.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, it is very unlikely that the migration effort by people wanting to come to this country will cease. I must therefore ask the Minister how long the Ministry of Defence expects to be committed to this task. Is it indefinite or for a set period?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I say to the noble and gallant Lord that the overall responsibility for dealing with immigration is cross-government. In so far as the MoD’s operational role is concerned, it will retain primacy of operational control until public confidence is restored and the number of individuals attempting to enter the UK through this route is brought under manageable levels.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
Forgive me, my Lords, I am not clear from my noble friend’s Answer as to whether or not this task will be subject to MACA rules. If it is, can she reassure me that for once the MoD will remember to send the bill, as it does not always do so? Could she clarify exactly where this task sits in the order of priority of defence tasks?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I reassure my noble friend that a keen eye will be kept on funding. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the MoD is currently computing costs to inform discussions with the Treasury—and, yes, we will certainly make sure that bills presented are paid. We are satisfied that this deployment does not in any way impinge on or prejudice our ability to carry out our broader MoD responsibilities on behalf of the nation.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, the Answer suggests to me that the Government have not thought this through. It makes all sorts of vague comments like
“are currently being worked through”
and
“will be made known in due course”.
Has this even been discussed with the French authorities? Without co-operation with the French, we are not going to get anywhere. Lastly, the Answer keeps talking about “illegal” people. If they are refugees or claiming to be so then they are not illegal; they are people who have an entitlement to claim asylum status.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. I have endeavoured to refer to them as “migrants” because that is what they are. The MoD’s role is to assist the Government’s broader objectives in approaching immigration policy by dealing with this particular aspect in the channel, which has caused such concern and has been such a source of heart-breaking tragedy and worry to the migrants themselves. The noble Lord asked whether this plan had been thought through. Obviously, the detail has to be worked out but it is very positive that the MoD is gladly taking on this role, and Defence Ministers have committed to providing a Statement to both Houses once the plans for implementing defence primacy have been thoroughly worked through and refined.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, has the Minister had a chance to look at the implications for her department’s actions under UNCLOS, the law of the sea, and will she assure us that we will always conform to it? Will she return to the debate that was held in your Lordships’ House two weeks ago today on behalf of Cross-Bench Peers that drew attention to the over 80 million refugees and displaced people in the world today, and to the calls from throughout the House to look not just at the pull factors but at the push factors and to co-ordinate cross-department activity and international activity in getting to the root cause?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord that, whatever the MoD does in its primacy of operational control, discharge of that duty will absolutely be done in compliance with international laws and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The noble Lord is quite right that there is a much broader picture here that is shared by countries across the world, and he is correct to identify it as a need to be addressed in the hope that we can stop migrants setting off on perilous journeys in the first place.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, not right that until agreement is reached with the French to take them back, it does not really matter who picks them out of the water?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
What is important is that we have in place a plan to try to mitigate and prevent the misery that has been enduring, which I think has been upsetting to everyone. That is what this initiative is about.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I can understand the impact on Daily Mail readers of the news that the Navy has taken charge, but I am not sure how many refugees seeking asylum in the UK read the Daily Mail. So what practical difference will we see—or, more importantly, will they see—in deterring refugees from crossing the channel in small boats?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The involvement of the Navy is primarily to ensure that the dangers that have confronted migrants setting out on this hazardous course can be assuaged or even prevented from arising altogether. That is why the modus operandi will be one of interception and escort; the Navy will be responsible for bringing migrants to UK shores in a safe and controlled manner. That will prevent uncontrolled or undocumented arrivals.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, Tobias Ellwood, the well-respected chair of the Defence Committee in the other place, has called these proposals “rushed” and a “massive distraction” for the military, but of course it is a massive distraction for the electorate as well. Does the Minister understand the fear that proposals to deploy the military against desperate refugees causes in refugee and migrant communities who are already here? This smacks not of the dog whistle but of the foghorn.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I totally disagree. This is a positive intervention to, as I said earlier, assuage and prevent tragedy and make a positive contribution to helping the plight in which the migrants find themselves.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, just before Christmas the French Government closed their borders to British citizens, seeming to be able to do so legally. Can the Minister explain to the British public how they can do that, yet we seem not to be able to stop migrants illegally coming into our country?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As I said earlier, the broader issues of immigration policy are a matter for the Home Office and the FCDO, and the issues that the noble Baroness mentions are something that they are actively pursuing. The role of the MoD in respect of this immediate requirement, which I think is a positive participation and involvement, is to try to ensure that migrants who set out on these hazardous journeys are supported to safety in a controlled manner.
Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the bill be referred to a Grand Committee on Thursday 27 January for debate before Second Reading.
Covid-19
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this pandemic has taken a huge toll on the physical and mental health of the nation, on businesses, on leisure and on our economy. Across the UK, people have made heroic efforts to care for, serve and protect others, from the staff and volunteers who have delivered an amazing vaccination programme to the NHS and to those who have kept schools, shops, hospitality and public services running, as well as all those who have stayed at home—and have not had parties—in order to protect others, and have missed out on special times with friends and family.
So we are all keen to get back to living and working as normal as quickly as possible. We welcome the overall fall in cases, hospitalisations and the death rate. This follows the success of the vaccine and the care that so many have taken in testing and in following the rules.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that plan B measures will lapse throughout the UK. We do not want to see restrictions in place any longer than necessary. In response to a question yesterday from Keir Starmer, Mr Johnson agreed that he would publish the scientific evidence behind the decision. Can the noble Baroness today confirm that this has now been published and is publicly available and will she commit to ensuring that it is available in the Library of the House of Lords as soon as possible? I think she will understand, given the recent scandalous events in Downing Street with varying accounts from the Prime Minister, that public confidence can now be assured only when back-up evidence is available.
Although there are fewer cases and deaths across the country than there were last week and scientists are optimistic that omicron has peaked, does the noble Baroness accept that we still need to be cautious? In some parts of the country, cases are still rising though we hope they will start to fall. The health service, underresourced even before the pandemic, is facing enormous pressures with huge delays. Many appointments for surgery and treatment have been cancelled. The WHO and many scientists predict that there may be further variants into the summer and daily deaths are still over 350. The British Medical Association, representing those in the NHS front line, is concerned that given these factors the Prime Minister
“risks creating a false sense of security”.
I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could respond to this: what advice is now available for those shielding or people who are clinically more vulnerable regarding the move from plan B back to plan A, including on working from home and using public transport?
What is clear with all these factors is that we need a credible plan on how we can live with Covid, including any new variants that may emerge. The Government have to look past the current maelstrom they are experiencing and the focus must be on resilience to any future pandemics or future variants.
I do not know what the Government’s plan is—I hope the noble Baroness does—but we can offer some advice on the way forward that I hope she can respond to. The vaccination programme has proved its worth. We would retain an army of trained volunteers to always be available to support the National Health Service. We also have to work with other countries and international organisations to provide vaccines across the world, if we are to end the cycle of another new variant emerging just as we think we have dealt with the last one.
We know testing works. There has to be a national supply of test kits to avoid shortages so tests can be available when and where they are needed. Ideally, it would be good if the Government could look at the UK manufacturers, which are so keen to provide these.
I do not know how many times we have to say this, but the Government really must increase sick pay and extend it to all workers. It should never be a choice between keeping others safe by staying home or being able to pay the rent and the energy bills.
We cannot just keep talking about ventilation in classrooms, or indeed workplaces. I know the schools’ ventilation programme has eventually started—and that is welcome—but the Government have to move more quickly to ensure that all children can stay in school. Can the noble Baroness say when this programme will be completed and what percentage of classrooms or schools have now been included and seen their ventilation improved?
There are also a number of common-sense measures that, while not ideal or enjoyable, do not impinge too much on our daily lives—such as mask wearing in busy crowded spaces and basic hygiene measures to protect from infection transmission—that we should not be too quick to discard. Will the Government continue with public health messaging to enable this?
Finally, the death toll in the UK from this virus is devastating. It is over 150,000, which is one of the worst rates in the world. Despite the shocking errors in test and trace, the lack of NHS readiness at the start of the pandemic, and the problems that we saw with PPE supplies and contracts—which may be subject to ongoing legal proceedings—the vaccination programme and the adherence of the public, though not Downing Street, to public safety measures have been real game changers. Those two things—the public’s response and having a vaccine—have really made a difference.
At this point all our decisions must be based on moving forward with care, using sensible proportionate measures to learn to live with Covid. We need to do all we can to ensure that we do not again end up playing Covid hokey-cokey in lifting and then reimposing restrictions that none of us wants to see. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness can address some of these points. The key thing is that we welcome this but urge caution as well.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, we obviously share the relief being felt across the whole country that the peak of the omicron wave seems now to have passed. However, Covid is not over. Yesterday, the ONS reported that one in 20 people in England caught Covid last week and government-reported cases still number over 100,000. The NHS remains pressured, with around 2,000 admissions per day, and last week there were 1,900 deaths.
We clearly need to learn to live with Covid, but that is not necessarily the same as going back to life exactly as it was before Covid. We need to remember that continuing levels of Covid, even at reduced numbers, will continue to fill some hospital beds. This delays treatment of everybody else, which is particularly significant given the 6 million people on the NHS waiting list.
This is the backdrop against which we have to judge yesterday’s announcement. The exact timing clearly has more to do with Conservative Party management and saving the Prime Minister’s premiership than concerns about public health or boosting the economy. While ending some of the restrictions, such as Covid passports, is to be welcomed, we have some reservations elsewhere, particularly on masks.
As everybody knows, masks are a cost-effective precaution that help reduce transmission of the virus and consequently reduce the pressure on the NHS and its staff. People have been asked to make tough sacrifices throughout the pandemic but, in our view, requiring people to wear a mask on public transport and in the shops a little longer to protect others is a small price worth paying. There are many, especially the clinically extremely vulnerable, who are concerned about travelling on crowded public transport or using the shops. Keeping masks in those crowded places will allow them to get on with their day-to-day lives with confidence in a way that they have not been able to do for virtually two years.
The Prime Minister said that
“we will trust the judgment of the British people”
on whether to wear masks. Given his own complete lack of judgment and moral authority, I suspect the consequence will be that mask wearing on the Tube and on trains will collapse. Before the latest restrictions, mask wearing on the Tube was under 50%. Today it is about 90%. Next week, I bet it will be back to 50% or less. In our view, to have permitted this at this point is a mistake.
As for masks in schools, we all want to keep schools open but with huge numbers of pupils still out of school, it remains hard to do so in some cases. As long as the evidence shows that masks are helping reduce these absences, we support heads who want to retain masks in their schools. If individual heads decide to do this beyond the end of this week, will the Government support them?
The real issue in schools is, of course, the Government’s failure to provide air purifiers in classrooms. I echo the noble Baroness’s question: how far have the Government got in their admittedly inadequate plans to improve the number of classrooms that have such air purifiers?
On ending the requirement to work from home, while going back to the office will be good and right for many, we would encourage employers to consider the wishes of their employees—as many of them are already doing. Can the noble Baroness say what policy the Government are adopting towards their own employees? Will they require all civil servants to return to their former work patterns or will they, like many private sector employers, show more flexibility?
More generally, this Statement—which unfortunately we did not have the benefit of hearing—is suffused with the kind of hyperbole and exceptionalism that we have come to expect from this Prime Minister. Given his abject failure to stick to the rules himself or to ensure that his own staff behave responsibly, to many ears this tone sounds more than usually ill-judged. It is too much to expect sincere humility from this Prime Minister. He should go.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments on the positive news in this Statement that we have been able to move forward. I will attempt to address some of their questions.
I will ensure that the scientific evidence is placed in the Library. I am afraid I am not sure whether it has been published yet; it was said that this would happen this week, but I will check and make sure that it is available for noble Lords. I can say that we considered a range of data in making this decision, including data on infections, the effectiveness of vaccination, Covid pressures on the NHS, workforce absences, public behaviours and international comparisons, alongside the views from the scientific community. As the noble Baroness rightly said, the data is showing that Covid cases are falling and that the high levels of vaccination and booster uptake have helped reduce the risk of severe disease and hospitalisation, which, in turn, has helped reduce the pressure.
However, I completely accept what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord said and we continue to urge caution, because there are still around 1,600 Covid patients in England. They are both absolutely right: while we are very pleased to have been able to take this step forward, we all have to be cautious. I think we can all accept that the British people have shown that they can make judgments about what they are doing and how they can feel safe, and will continue to do so. It is thanks to their willingness to get vaccinated and the way they have thought of others as much as themselves that we have been able to get to this position. I would also say that hospital admissions have stabilised and the number of patients in ICU is falling, so the data is showing that we are moving in the right direction.
The noble Baroness asked about advice for people who have previously been shielding. There is now no specific advice and, as the noble Lord said, people will need to make their own judgments about how they feel and what they want to do.
The noble Lord asked about public transport. Operators of public transport can still require passengers to wear face coverings as a condition of carriage. I might be wrong, but I thought the Mayor of London, for instance, said that about the Tube yesterday, notwithstanding some of his comments. That option is still available; I believe the mayor has introduced it and obviously he did previously.
Masks will no longer be required, but the guidance suggests that individuals continue to wear a face covering in crowded and enclosed spaces where they may come into contact with people they do not usually meet. Again, it will be up to individual businesses and organisations whether they wish to ask their customers to wear face coverings. We think that, as we move towards an endemic scenario—we hope that this is becoming endemic, rather than a pandemic—we need to move towards guidance rather than mandated rules.
The noble Baroness rightly asked about our international efforts. She will know that we have been a world leader in ensuring that developing countries can access vaccines. Last month, we pledged £105 million of emergency aid to help support vulnerable countries and we met our goal of sharing 30 million doses by the end of last year. That benefited over 30 countries as part of our G7 pledge to donate 100 million doses by June.
In relation to support for individuals, we have committed over £344 million to ensure there are no financial barriers to isolating in England. The noble Baroness asked about statutory sick pay. We have made Covid-related statutory sick pay payable from day 1, meaning that it can be up to 75% more generous for full-time employees who need to self-isolate. We have also reintroduced the statutory sick pay rebate scheme which reimburses eligible businesses for the cost of statutory sick pay for Covid-related absences. Sick pay is one part of the support available, but people may also be eligible for the £500 support payment as well.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about schools. We have removed the requirement for face masks in the classroom, but directors of public health will be able to propose temporary recommendations for face coverings in communal areas across their area, or parts of it, in the event of a Covid outbreak and if the public health situation justifies it. On ventilation in schools, I can say that over 350,000 CO2 monitors have been rolled out across the school estate and the country to help in identifying poorly ventilated areas, backed by a £25 million investment. I am happy to say—I hope this provides some reassurance—that feedback following this shows that, in most settings, existing ventilation measures were sufficient. For the cases where maintaining good ventilation is not possible, 8,000 air-cleaning units are being rolled out across schools. That figure has gone up quite significantly and I am sure it will continue to do so if needed.
The noble Lord also asked about working from home. It will be up to departments to decide their own arrangements with their staff, but we are encouraging people to return to the office as a cross-government message, not least because I think quite a lot of people would like to come back and see friends and colleagues who they perhaps have not seen for a very long time.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will speak remotely and I invite her to speak now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Leader of the House just said that there is no advice for people who were formerly shielding, the clinically extremely vulnerable, but there is; the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, confirmed this to me last night. It says that this group should still consider meeting people only 14 days after they have been fully vaccinated, social distancing, asking friends and family to have rapid lateral flow antigen tests, asking any visitors to their homes to wear face coverings and not going into enclosed crowded spaces. Putting this guidance on a website is not the same as telling this group of people, or the wider public, especially their employers, directly that this group still need to take care. Will the Leader take this back and ensure that communications go to this vulnerable group of just under 4 million people?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I apologise to the noble Baroness and will certainly take that back to government colleagues. I recognise what she says.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, there does not seem to be anything about future plans for boosters. We all acknowledge that the vaccination campaign has been a triumph, but we still do not know for how long the vaccine is efficacious. Are there plans for booster doses to be given annually or at other intervals?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My noble friend puts his finger on it when he says that at this stage we do not know. However, I can reassure him that this will continue to be monitored. If it becomes necessary to deliver further boosters, we will of course do so. We will also need to be alive to the potential for different variants, which may involve other actions. I can assure him that we now have a wealth of evidence and experience and know, as in this very announcement today, how important vaccines and boosters are. That will certainly be at the forefront of our mind as we continue moving forward.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her update. I believe that NHS staff who have not received two doses of the vaccine face dismissal from 1 April onwards. It is estimated that this will result in London losing something like 12.5% of its midwives, putting at risk the lives of pregnant women and their babies. Such a loss of staff may be thought to be justified were it not for the case that two doses of the vaccine are not understood to protect against the omicron variant of Covid-19. We shall lose precious midwives to implement a policy that has been superseded by the evolution of the virus. Will Her Majesty’s Government put the implementation of existing legislation on hold, given that it may now lead only to harm and not the good that it was designed to promote?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I am sure the right reverend Prelate would also accept that unvaccinated healthcare workers increase the risk to themselves, their colleagues and the very vulnerable people in their care. It is our responsibility to help give everyone the best possible protection. I can say that the vast majority of NHS staff have been vaccinated: nine in 10 have already had their second jabs. The NHS will continue to support and encourage staff who have not yet been vaccinated to take up the offer. Since we first consulted on this proposal, the proportion of NHS trust healthcare workers who have been vaccinated with a first dose has increased from 92% to 94%, an increase of 75,000.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, in the period since the pandemic began, we have learned that the protections we have all been routinely using, such as the wearing of masks, handwashing and so forth, protect not only against Covid but against a number of other common infections which themselves have an impact on workforces and absentee rates, and therefore economic outcomes. I want to take the Minister back to my noble friend Lady Smith’s point about public messaging. Rather than encourage people to see this as a moment of freedom from restrictions, is it the Government’s intention to remind them that, in certain respects—which as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, are not particularly onerous—if they continue to observe certain precautions, they will be protecting not only against Covid but against other diseases and infections that cause pressure on the NHS?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. We will of course continue to do that and make sure we are getting the message out. As she rightly says, people can wash their hands and have better ventilation. We will absolutely continue to pass those messages on, nationally and, I am sure, within schools and other settings and in individual businesses. We are all used to the signs now, as we go around various places, and I am sure that will continue.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, the Health Secretary claimed in the media this morning that the Government are actively considering removing the mandatory isolation period at some point in the near future. Presumably, if that goes ahead, it will place greater responsibility on lateral flow testing to show that you are negative, and so that would be an even more difficult moment to introduce charges for those tests, as the Government are also apparently considering.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
The noble Lord is right. As he says, the self-isolation regulations expire on 24 March. In the other place, the Prime Minister said yesterday that he expects them not to be renewed. Obviously, a final decision will be made nearer the time, but that is the intention. We will continue to provide free lateral flow tests for as long as is necessary. As the noble Lord rightly said, testing has been one of our most important lines of defence, and we continue to issue record numbers. At a later stage in our response, free tests will end, but there will have to be a balance; it is not something that will be happening imminently. We completely understand the value of lateral flow tests—all of us have seen it—but, as I said, as we start to move towards treating this as an endemic, things will need to change. That is something we will have to consider further down the line.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, ventilation remains a distinct problem in very many schools up and down the country. So concerned have some teacher friends of mine been that they have bought their own air purifiers, given that the Government have not filled the gap. The Minister said that 8,000 cleaning units will be rolled out—that seems to me to be an extremely small number—but can she also say over what period these will be rolled out?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
They are being rolled out currently and will continue to be so. As I said in response to a previous question, 350,000 CO2 monitors have been rolled out. Notwithstanding the comments the noble Baroness made, feedback has shown that, in most settings, existing ventilation measures are sufficient.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, if we accept that we are going to be living with this virus for many years to come, we have to start being proactive rather than reactive. Ventilation affects more than schools; it affects public buildings and business buildings, where many people congregate. What is the Government’s view on changing building regulations, so that new builds start to deal with the endemic, rather than cause problems by not keeping people safe, and so help the economy to keep going?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I am afraid I do not have an answer to that question, so I will go back to the department to try to find out, and will provide that information to the noble Lord.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Could she confirm that we will still continue with the vaccination of 12 to 15 year-olds? The JCVI recommends that the over-5s are also vaccinated. Now that the MHRA has approved the drug Paxlovid, which has been found to be highly effective in trials at reducing serious illness by 89%, do the Government have plans to purchase such drugs for those who might catch Covid in future?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As the noble Lord will be aware, we have already purchased more antivirals than anywhere else in Europe, so we are on the front foot on this and will continue to be so. As new drugs become available, I am sure we will continue to do that. The noble Lord is absolutely right: we will be continuing to vaccinate those aged between 12 and 15. In England alone, we have already delivered over 1.7 million doses to that age group, and we are continuing to work on increasing take-up—for example, through repeat offers, ensuring information is translated into appropriate languages, and collaborating with leading social media platforms to direct young people and their parents to trusted sources of information.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, one of the interesting things about the Statement is the complete absence of any reference to advice from the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Chief Medical Officer or the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, which is the Government’s chief advisory committee in the pandemic. Although the Minister says that the advice will be put in the Library of the House, can she assure us now that the advice received from the scientists accords with and supports the decision that the Government have taken?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I said in response to the first question from the noble Baroness, we considered a range of data in the decision-making and, of course, the views of the scientific community.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their brave decision to relax the restrictions. I think many people who have been suffering severe mental health impacts from the pandemic will be relieved that perhaps we can start on a road to recovery and, as the noble Lord said, living with this virus. I go back to the question of the right reverend Prelate regarding mandatory vaccinations for NHS health staff. We are perhaps in danger of shooting ourselves in the foot if we get rid of loyal staff, and indeed many staff who are not even patient-facing, at a time when we face such a crisis in the NHS. There has already been a significant impact, as I understand it, in care homes and the social care sector.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I said in response to the right reverend Prelate, we are continuing to support and encourage staff who have not yet been vaccinated, and we are seeing more and more staff coming forward to get their jabs.
Health and Care Bill
Thursday 20th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 View all Health and Care Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (20 Jan 2022)
“(j) fracture liaison services to identify people at increased risk of fragility fractures and prevent future fractures.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures equity of access to Fracture Liaison Services for people with osteoporosis.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 50 is supported by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, underlining the cross-party interest in and support for this vital issue. I am grateful to them. I note my interest as co-chairman of the APPG on Osteoporosis and Bone Health. I also support Amendment 101B in this group, on mental health, and much look forward to the debate on the other amendments.
Amendment 50 is, at heart, about equality of access to services for people with osteoporosis. If accepted, it would end the current appalling postcode lottery which means that so many people are suffering unnecessarily from the pain and distress of avoidable broken bones. It will do this by making the provision of fracture liaison services—FLS—one of the core services that an integrated care board must consider for the people for whom it has responsibility, alongside dental and ophthalmic services and others.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak now.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 50 and will speak also to Amendment 57. I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Osteoporosis and Bone Health. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, for leading on this cross-party amendment.
Osteoporosis is a condition which can cause much pain and debilitation to many people, mainly women. Prevention is important and this is a condition which needs treating by a fracture liaison service. This service should be available to and in easy reach of patients who can be frail and elderly and whose bones can be easily fractured.
I would like to bring to your Lordships’ attention the case of the local hospital which serves the north part of North Yorkshire, a very rural area: the Friarage Hospital, Northallerton, which, sadly, over the years has been downgraded. It used to have an excellent orthopaedic unit; the senior consultant was a brilliant surgeon who unfortunately had to go back to South Africa. He was the brightest and the best. The health service needs leaders, and both staff and patients need up-to-date equipment for satisfactory outcomes. Now there is a visiting consultant, who wanted a DEXA scanner to save his patients the long journey to James Cook University Hospital in Middlesbrough. Many of the patients are elderly and frail. Transport can be a problem. The consultant did not get his DEXA scanner, which diagnoses osteoporosis. I thank the Minister for looking into this case after I tabled a Parliamentary Question.
The problem is upgrading with new equipment. This generally goes to the large hospitals. Women’s orthopaedic wards always seem to have to fight for what they need. A good fracture liaison service, which patients can reach, helps prevention of ill health and without doubt has benefits for everyone, especially the frail and elderly. If they are to be treated in an accessible clinic, near their homes, it must have the correct equipment and well-trained staff. I think it was Winston Churchill who said, “Give them the tools and they will do the job.” The big need at the moment is finding and retaining trained, dedicated, enthusiastic staff. They are the National Health Service’s biggest asset; without them, the job will not be done.
Amendment 57, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, follows on well from Amendment 50, and I would like to say a few words on that amendment. It requires that
“health services are available in a community setting where possible, in order to improve access.”
At the moment, weekends are becoming very difficult in rural areas, such as the one where I live. From Friday afternoon to Monday, there is no GP service. On a Sunday, a young woman I know went with an eye infection to the nearest A&E department only to be told that it was not an emergency and she should wait and go to her GP. She did so and was given some eye drops, which were not the answer. When the eye infection worsened, she rang 111. They sent an email to the GP, as the infection had spread to both eyes. She was then sent to the eye clinic at the same hospital that had sent her away from A&E. She was off work for two weeks. Only if the correct treatments are available quickly can infections be treated and days off work saved.
The correct antibiotics for infections are so important to stop resistance to drugs. We also need a first-class pathology service, with test results coming back quickly. I do not think the public always realise what an important job these services do. I hope the failing health service in rural areas can be revived, where it is desirable to have a service in the community near where people live. We need the specialist health services as well—which may be miles away from rare diseases, serious accidents and illness. Wherever the best treatment is, the relief of being treated by experts who know what they are doing is unbeatable.
Will the Minister agree that there is a lot to do to get the health service back on the road post Covid-19? We all want to see it thrive. Thank you.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 57, which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has mentioned, is also supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I declare my interest as a director and controlling shareholder of the Family Hubs Network Ltd, which advocates for family hubs and advises local authorities on how to establish them. I am also a vice-president of the LGA.
In speaking to my Amendment 57, I would point out that in Chinese medicine you traditionally saw the doctor when in health. They were paid a retainer to keep you that way and, if you became sick, they would not be paid until health was regained. This speaks volumes about alternative health paradigms to our own. Even if we never go that far, the prevention of disease and the maintenance of health should be an overriding priority for the health service.
In placing the duty to prevent the development of poor physical and mental health directly under the duty to promote the NHS constitution, it is my intention to make it a similarly fundamental duty. Prevention is always better than cure. Yes, prevention is already mentioned in the Bill, for example in Clauses 5 and 16, and elsewhere in Clauses 20 and 59. However I do not consider that it is given sufficient weight, particularly given concerns shared with me by members of the Family Hubs Network.
Family Hubs Network members work with existing integrated care systems and note that the main issue faced by these ICSs is the management and throughput of the frail, elderly population to address bed-blocking and the onward delays to elective surgery. Hence they can lean towards an acute hospital reactive care model. Family Hubs Network members are already seeing the consequence of this with, for example, few if any ICS strategies focusing on population health through prevention and early help, especially for children and families.
Indeed, more and more ICSs are seeing community-based contracts swallowed up by the acute hospital conglomerates. They rarely, if ever, hold the necessary cultural understanding of community care, prevention and early help, and their interests do not lie in these. Children’s health services, which would ideally be delivered in the community, can be drawn into acute hospital structures which are more reactive than preventive in nature. Yet in some cases these very same services, such as continence, speech and language, allergies and others, are being delivered in community settings, close to families, through integrated family service hubs. Given that many of these health needs are also psychosocial and practical, accessing them from such settings enables families also to receive local authority-commissioned early help. This surely is integration in action.
My amendment also specifies that health services should be available in the community where possible, to improve access and help prevent conditions from worsening. A local-by-default approach would cut down the number of patients required to make prohibitively long journeys when a service could instead be delivered in a primary care or local authority setting. We need a reverse Beeching for healthcare, where we reopen community hospitals. Out-of-area specialist mental health hospitals, which remove people from the social networks which help them get better more quickly, were in the news again this week. Local units have closed and there is a lack of care in the community, even though this is a far less expensive option and the setting in which many prefer to be treated.
Returning to the issue of our ageing population, a reactive care model is completely unsustainable. Unless we focus on preventing big-ticket items such as diabetes, depression, anxiety and dementia—the list is endless—the cost of providing healthcare will keep going up year on year, by even more than it already does. A preventive paradigm would ensure greater ruthlessness about educating parents and healthcare workers about the psychotic effects of high-strength cannabis, for instance.
The eminent professor, Sir Robin Murray, recently said:
“I think we’re now 100 per cent sure that cannabis is one of the causes of a schizophrenia-like psychosis. If we could abolish the consumption of skunk we would have 30 per cent less patients”—
this was in south London—
“and we might make a better job of looking after the patients we have.”
In 2019, Murray’s research team reported in the Lancet Psychiatry their finding that south London had the highest incidence of psychosis in Europe and singled out cannabis as the largest contributing factor. He expressed concern that some liberal-minded parents would rather see their children smoking pot than drinking, without appreciating the potential associated dangers and the social and economic costs. These multiply with skunk, which is several times more potent than the drug they might have been used to in their day.
It is not just parents who need educating, including about higher-strength forms: experts say that cannabis addiction is treated by health professionals as a low-risk soft drug, yet, since 2005, there has been a 777% increase in the number of those aged 55 and over who need treatment for it. When cigarettes’ contribution to the development of lung cancer was firmly established, action to prevent smoking was taken despite it being fashionable and popular—more than 60% of adult males smoked; now that number is approaching 15%.
When there is incontrovertible evidence that something harms mental or physical health, a duty to prevent would mean that such damaging ignorance was no longer allowed to prevail. Ditto foot-dragging on access: mental health care in the community has been talked about since we began to close asylums in the early 1960s, yet it is still in the NHS long-term plan. I am keen to hear from my noble friend the Minister why prevention should not be given prominence as a duty in the Bill.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. I really appreciate his remarks about Professor Murray’s work and his interpretation of it.
This is a Bill about integration, but how much integration will it actually achieve? We have spoken many times about wanting health and social care to work better together, but there is a difference between collaboration and integration. The former achieves two separate systems that, while better aligned in, for example, their information sharing, still operate without particular reference to the other. Those who use both systems continue to straddle a divide between the two and, too often, fall between those gaps.
Integration, on the other hand, speaks of synergy and of systems that enable one another and close the divide between the two, so that people can move between them without the terrifying leap of faith that currently exists. This is what will truly make a difference for those who use these services.
Unfortunately, the Bill in its current form will struggle to bring about this true integration. It requires the production of only a health outcomes framework, which will simply entrench the divide between health and social care, as both will continue to pull in different directions with different objectives, which are often conflicting.
Currently, health and social care sectors work towards two different sets of aims: social care is led by the well-being objectives of the Care Act 2014, whereas the NHS is led by various objectives set out in documents such as the NHS constitution, the NHS Oversight Framework and the NHS Long Term Plan.
An integrated service would mark a major shift in how the two systems view their role in supporting those who use their services. For example, it could see the NHS adopting an approach that was informed by ensuring the independence of its patients in a similar way to the principles that lead the provision of care and support. The greatest problems have been caused when health and social care start to gatekeep their domains: I have had to speak too often about the abhorrent placement of people with complex needs in in-patient units far from home, as a result of catastrophically poor alignment of health and social care support to meet their needs locally. I declare an interest as chair of the Department of Health and Social Care-appointed panel to oversee the discharge of people with learning disabilities and autistic people who are detained in long-term segregation.
I want to thank Mencap and Skills for Care for briefings on my amendments in this group. My Amendments 85 and 88 would place greater emphasis on the provision and quality of social care services and on the integration of health and social care services. I also declare an interest as president of the Royal College of Occupational Therapists. This is relevant because occupational therapy is a health profession that is equally at home in the NHS and in social care, and because occupational therapists have a role in tackling long-standing health inequalities through community rehabilitation and in prevention.
The history of health and care integration is littered with a natural reflex towards health and the pressing political priorities of the day. The ICB is primarily NHS focused and will hold responsibility for strategic planning and monitoring of services against the needs of an ICS population, but the answers cannot all come from health alone. We are in danger of missing an opportunity.
A duty to promote integration must include adequate provision for both health and care by taking a holistic approach. The outcomes from one will impact significantly on the other. Viewing the duty to promote integration through a health lens alone limits our understanding of what social care has to offer—think back to the debate on my noble friend Lord Mawson’s amendment on Tuesday. In some areas, integrated care system planning seems to focus mostly on integration within healthcare and not on integration between and across health-led provision and social care. At present, provider alliances are largely acute trust led.
Let us take discharge co-ordination as an example. It is currently suboptimal, with too few care co-ordinators, a lack of social care representation and feedback in assessment decisions, and a neglect of the resources and expertise of voluntary and independent providers.
The staffing context is complex. According to Skills for Care, there are 17,700 organisations providing or organising care, delivered through 39,000 establishments. Some 41% of those are residential, 59% are non- residential and 68% are CQC regulated. More than 6,000 organisations have fewer than four employees. That is a very broad church of employers. Not only does it make it much more difficult to communicate but social care lacks the infrastructure of the NHS to disseminate and co-ordinate.
My amendments propose strengthened provisions for ICBs to consider how integration benefits and can benefit from social care. My Amendment 89 would require ICBs to develop and publish a health and social care outcomes framework at least every two years to ensure that health and social care services are properly integrated.
ICSs present an opportunity to co-ordinate services, improve population health and plan on a system-wide basis to attract and retain staff with the right mix of skills. The ICS role should therefore ensure that the right staff skill mix is available to deliver this singular vision, a vision of person-centred and outcome-based care through multidisciplinary teams operating with and around each individual. Integrated care would mean that people would only have to tell their story once to receive high-quality, joined-up and seamless care. The approach each system takes to workforce planning will rightly vary to meet local needs and requirements, but that does not mean that their workforce plans cannot be measured against a joint outcomes framework. In collaboration with partners, Skills for Care has developed principles of workforce integration which address the above points.
The aim of this amendment is to ensure that health and social care do not pursue two different sets of objectives but work to a common aim to underpin transformation. I ask the Minister to reassure the Committee on these points. I believe these amendments will be helpful.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, who speaks with such knowledge and authority on these issues. I will speak to Amendment 110, but first I will make some comments on the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and my noble friend Lord Black.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, highlights the difficulties that those of us living in rural areas have. I regret to see the downgrading, in particular, of the Friarage Hospital in Northallerton, where my father, for one, was treated to great effect. I associate myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I know that the Minister is familiar with these arguments now, because he very kindly spent an hour with his team listening to me on these issues. Whereas before, national health policy used to recognise and measure rural health policy, particularly as regards rurality and sparsity of population, those markers have now gone.
The House will be familiar with my work with the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. I regret the fact that, whereas my father and my brother in their time would have been rewarded by the number of patients that they had on their list, and by the distance they had to travel from the surgery to visit patients in their own homes or when called out to an emergency, that has now gone. Much of the bread-and-butter income, as I understand it, for dispensing doctors and pharmacists in rural areas is made up from dispensing. So a separate argument to be had on another day is how, from the beginning of April, I understand, those reimbursements are going to come under the cosh. I will just leave that with my noble friend; I will ask for a separate meeting with him on that. I pay tribute to the work that dispensing doctors do in rural areas under these pressures and I am delighted to be working with them in this regard.
My noble friend Lord Black spoke eloquently on osteopenia. There is a cohort of people—mainly women—who, like myself, are diagnosed with osteopenia. I had not been in the House very long when, having broken one bone six months previously, I broke another. I was sent to the fall clinic where, unsurprisingly, we were mostly women being tested to see how likely we were to have a fall and break a bone. When my noble friend said that many women could die within a year of breaking a hip, I recalled that I was told that I had an 11% chance of breaking a hip. The good news, I suppose, is that I have an 89% chance of not breaking a hip, and that is something I cling on to.
I was put on a course—as I am sure others have been as well—of very strong vitamin D tablets. Since I completed that course, I have had no further treatment, but also no recommendations as to how to prevent the condition—in my case, and I am sure in the cases of other women—deteriorating into osteoporosis. I will just leave the Minister with the thought that, given the seriousness of the condition, those who are on the cusp of descending into osteoporosis itself should perhaps be given greater guidance.
Amendment 110 is intended as a probing amendment, and I am delighted to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has lent her support to it. I am very grateful to her for that. We had many debates on domestic abuse in the context of that Bill, now an Act, but domestic abuse remains a scourge in our society. While it is recognised as a crime, it is most often manifested initially in a GP’s surgery, not at a police station. In the context of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, describing the Bill as essentially an integration exercise, I believe it is important to see and recognise a victim of domestic abuse in a safe place or a safe haven—in a setting with trusted professionals, such as a GP’s surgery.
I am sure that the Minister will share my concern that there is currently no training for GPs or other health professionals enabling them, or expecting them to be able, to spot or treat an individual suffering from mental or physical abuse or to instruct them on how to engage with the police. Does he share my concern that that is indeed the case? I understand from Anne Marie Morris, my honourable friend in the other place who moved this amendment at that time, that Devon is the only health system to have a dedicated individual on the CCG board and a health and care strategy for victims of abuse. That strategy has improved health and care outcomes through training and other interventions. Surely, this should be rolled out nationally for other local health services to benefit from.
While it is welcome that the Government have agreed to take this issue into account—and I understand that the amendment was agreed in the Commons—I urge the Minister and the department to go further. ICBs should be mandated to have a strategy to deal with domestic abuse. I am sure that the Minister would agree that, if it is not mandated, it probably simply will not be done. Additionally, the role of the domestic abuse and sexual violence lead on the ICB is essential to spearhead the work in this area and to provide essential expertise. As there is only such a lead at the moment in Devon—who does fantastic work which can be seen first hand, and has been seen to help a number of related pilots roll out in that area—I would like to see this work rolled out throughout the country.
Amendment 110 therefore sets out a duty to prepare a strategy to support victims of domestic abuse using the services set out in that amendment. It asks for various consultations to take place not only with the local authority for the area within the integrated care board but with the domestic abuse local partnership board and other persons whom the integrated care board considers appropriate. I humbly submit that this is a gap in the Bill at the moment that Amendment 110 would fill.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 297J in this group, but I will preface my remarks by returning to the purpose of this Bill. The stated purpose of this Bill is to promote integration of health and care services in order to reduce health inequalities and to promote better outcomes. I have chosen, in this amendment, to speak on the issue of HIV and AIDS services. I have spoken in previous debates about access to sexual and reproductive health services such as contraception and abortion. They are two services which we would do well to look at in considerable detail, because they are services addressing issues that cannot alone be solved by the National Health Service. They are services which will only be solved by not only integration but collaboration between health and social care. Having, like many Members of this House, discussed these issues for many, many years, I come back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the other day, that we are trying to seek integration and collaboration between two fundamentally different services. One is organised as a national and essentially top-down system, and the other is organised on a local and democratically accountable basis, with a completely different ethos.
At this point it is worth us taking advantage of the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and noting what he said the other day about the National Health Service. He said—and I paraphrase—that one of the best ways to ensure that the National Health Service does what we expect it to do is to ensure that it has resources, and he is absolutely right. Would that people took the same attitude to social care—but they do not, and in the matters of both sexual health services and HIV services, we see in graphic and demonstrable terms the failure to do just that.
Turning to HIV services, it is important to note that although, overall, we have a very good story to tell on HIV in this country, and a reasonably good story to tell in the last few years as we are on a path towards the complete ending of transmission by 2030, we do have some problems. Last year, the number of people living with HIV in the UK rose to 106,000. In 2020, the number of people being tested at clinics decreased by 30%, and more so in black and minority communities, where late diagnosis, with all its complications, remains stubbornly high. However, there was a very great increase in online testing. HIV is an area in which there have been and will be, over the next few years, huge technological changes in diagnosis and treatment, which the NHS and social care should be up to speed with if we are to get to the stated aim of ending transmission by 2030—which we can do. The problem is that, at the moment, we have an increase in the rate of late HIV diagnosis—it was up to 42% in 2019—and we know the concomitant costs that that presents for the health service.
Anyone who has spoken to anybody involved in HIV services, be it in social care, local authorities or the NHS, will have heard exactly the same story since 2012. Just look at commissioning. HIV testing in sexual health clinics and community settings is commissioned by local authorities; HIV testing in GP settings, where it is clinically indicated, is commissioned by NHS England; HIV testing in GP settings as a public health intervention is commissioned by local authorities; HIV testing in secondary care, where it is clinically indicated, is commissioned by CCGs; HIV testing in secondary care as a public health intervention is commissioned by local authorities—keep with me, my Lords. Home testing, which is increasingly popular, is commissioned by local authorities and by Public Health England, for some periods, at some times in the year. Is it any wonder that it is a mess? We are not taking advantage of any of this and we are letting people down. The fragmentation in this area—even for people who have HIV, who are some of the savviest patients the NHS comes across and who are up to speed, sometimes in advance of their clinicians—is really difficult and does not make sense on any level; it does not make sense on a public health level or an individual level. I do not need to go into great detail, as noble Lords can work out for themselves all the consequences of that.
It is quite interesting to talk about one piece of work that the All-Party Parliamentary Group on HIV/Aids did. We did some in-depth research in south-east London, where there are some of the most advanced integrated care services for HIV. Even there, where there is very high prevalence and they know, largely, what they are dealing with and the populations where this is the biggest problem, they struggled to make sense of this fragmented commissioning picture.
I am not asking that all this funding be put into the NHS—most definitely not, because we all know that once money goes into the NHS, it never comes out again. I think there is a case to be made for increasing budgets, not least the budgets of local authorities, which have been slashed, in order for them to carry on doing what is important, which is getting to people long before they are anywhere near being any kind of medical priority.
What I am asking for in this amendment is a formal duty to collaborate. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that that is not necessary, but we cannot carry on as at present: we are badly wasting resources when we should not be. We have enough knowledge in this Committee of the levers that make decision-makers and commissioners change what they are doing, not least when they understand that there are new and more efficient ways to meet the needs of the population. I propose this amendment with no great sense of hope, but, if he does not accept it, I hope the noble Lord will at least understand that we cannot continue with this inefficient way of dealing with known issues. We must stop failing people when we could be sorting out the issues.
Lord Layard (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 101B, in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is a fundamental amendment to remedy the shocking imbalance between the provision of mental and physical healthcare. As was said in the debate last week, people with mental disorders who receive treatment are a minority—35% of children and 40% of adults—while for people with physical illnesses, the vast majority get treated. This is not parity of esteem; in fact, I think it is one of the greatest cases of discrimination in our public life. There is only one way to remedy it, which is that the funding of mental healthcare has to rise faster than the funding of physical healthcare. In other words, the fraction of NHS funding devoted to mental healthcare has to rise—it is a matter of simple logic. This is such a fundamental point of principle that it should be put into law.
The increase does not of course have to go on for ever, but only until the inequality has been eliminated and mental health is treated like physical health. In the words of the amendment, the rise should continue until
“people coming forward with mental health problems are as likely to be offered treatment as people with physical health problems”,
and, of course, to receive it within a period of time appropriate to their problem. Only then will we have achieved parity of esteem.
The amendment is a statement of principle. As we know, there are always problems of definition and interpretation with statements of principle, but such statements are common in our statute law. This is a sector, in financial terms, as big as the police service, and it is right that there should be legal principles governing it. If we want to secure justice for the sector, it needs a statement of principle. This is a stronger statement than any of those discussed last week, but if this is what we believe, it is what we should say.
The main argument for the amendment, as I have said, is one based on simple equity, but there is also a strong economic argument. Mental illness is mainly a disease of working age, while physical illness is mainly a disease of retirement. Half of all working-age disability and absenteeism is due to mental illness, so when we successfully treat mental illness, the savings to the economy and to the Exchequer are massive, especially when compared with the economic savings from the majority of physical healthcare. These economic savings were a key argument that led to the establishment of IAPT, Improving Access to Psychological Therapies, from 2008 onwards, and they have been verified in what has happened since in that service.
There is also another very important source of savings: savings to NHS physical healthcare. Psychological therapy has been shown to reduce the cost of physical healthcare for people with comorbid physical conditions. This can be seen in a major nationwide controlled trial done recently, which provided IAPT treatments to people with long-term physical conditions such as diabetes, CVD and COPD. This trial found that, within a year, the savings on physical healthcare covered the total cost of the psychological therapy—so the mental health service is saving money for the physical healthcare service. As a result, this approach is now being rolled out nationally.
So mental health is a classic case of spend to save, and extra spending is desperately needed. Some of it would fill the massive gaps in existing services, including for severe mental illness, and some of it would provide services to key groups of people who are barely helped at present, many of whom were referred to earlier in this debate.
First come the tragic children who fall below the CAMHS threshold, who are sometimes assessed and sent back home as not sick enough, but who desperately need help. For these young people, the Government are developing mental health support teams in schools, but the rollout is incredibly slow and the services also need to include a much higher level of expertise.
Then there are millions of people whose lives are wrecked by addiction to drugs, alcohol and gambling and who need psychological therapy. There are the victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, who have already been mentioned, and other forms of violence. So many of our social problems have a strong mental health component. There are good, evidence-based psychological treatments which NICE recommends for these problems, but they are not provided. They should be provided. Extra spending on mental health could massively improve our society.
There is one further point in the amendment. If we spend the money, we need to know what it is achieving. In IAPT we know the progress of 100% of those treated, but in most parts of adult and child mental health services we currently have very little quantitative data on what is being achieved. That has to change, so universal routine outcome measurement should be a reasonable quid pro quo for extra funding, but the extra funding is crucial. It is not enough to talk about parity of esteem. We must have a clear statement of how to recognise it and the funding principles to achieve it.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments with an emphasis on Amendment 101B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Layard, whom it is a pleasure to follow.
Last night, I went to the ballet and saw “Raymonda”, which has been placed in the context of the Crimea. It reminded me that Florence Nightingale took a hammer to a store-cupboard to get food and blankets for some of her patients because nobody knew what was inside it. She went on to be a leader in sound data for health- care, recognising that without data we could not plan for the future. This amendment emphasises measuring the outcomes of mental health nursing and other mental health interventions in order to ensure that we learn from practice and develop best practice cost-effectively. That is why I have put my name to Amendment 101B.
We need to look at similar patterns for care to those for physical illness. For example, the onset of paranoia and delusions which threaten the safety of an individual or those close to them could perhaps be equated with a suspected cancer where you wait for two weeks for an initial diagnosis. How many people are sectioned under the Mental Health Act for assessment because they have not managed to get an out-patient appointment for assessment earlier? I believe that is an example of discrimination against people with severe mental health problems. If we could get parity of access for assessment, it would be an extremely good beginning. I recognise that there are other physical and mental health problems that are less urgent, but I use that as a comparison.
Yesterday at a meeting concerning mental health reform after the pandemic, the Minister for Care and Mental Health Gillian Keegan and the chief executive of Mind were panellists. At that meeting, it was noted that investment in NHS mental health services currently increases year on year, largely due, I think, to action under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham. It was £11 billion in 2015-16 and is £14.3 billion today and it will continue to increase, including an additional £2.3 billion by 2023-24. It was said yesterday that the Government will ensure ICBs will increase spending on mental health in their area in line with growth in their overall funding allocations to meet the mental health investment standard. To address backlogs, the Government have published their mental health recovery action plan backed by an additional £5 million to ensure that the right support is in place. This illustrates that the Government are committed to the improvement of mental health services. The amendment would place a duty to monitor this investment and evaluate its effectiveness. I hope that the Minister feels able to support the principle behind the amendment and will meet those of us interested in this area to try to find a summary solution to the issues we are raising on parity not only for mental health care but for the care sector that has been outlined so comprehensively by my noble friend Lady Hollins.
All the points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, concerning osteoporosis could be made for drug-induced psychosis, schizophrenia and other severe mental illness problems. I hope that this Committee will be able to influence an amendment to the Bill that will ensure that the monitoring outlined in the amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Layard, will be taken forward.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 50 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Black, but I want to say how much I agree with Amendment 297J, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about the mess we have between local government and the NHS on sexual health services in general and the HIV services that she mentioned.
My view is that local government has a choice. It either accepts that it is part of a national service here and agrees to earmark funding allocations, or the service will have to go back to the NHS. The current situation is not working. Some local authorities are having to take on the responsibilities of others because some local authorities are not spending sufficiently. There is a movement of people, largely into the big cities, and it is an unfair system. We have to do something about it.
I also support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in her Amendment 110. Anyone listening to the debates during the recent passage of the domestic abuse legislation would have noted that one of the big challenges is the lack of integration among local agencies. I am afraid the NHS is a part of that and the noble Baroness’s amendment would give a very clear indication to the NHS that we expect more of it.
I have no doubt that, in winding, the Minister will say that Amendment 50 is not necessary because there is already a general duty on the NHS to provide fracture liaison services and the department is doing all it can to encourage the NHS to implement them. However, the dilemma for us is that the positive outcomes from those services have been known about for many years, yet progress in moving to the standard adoption of them through the country is very slow indeed.
As far back as 2010, the Royal College of Physicians produced an audit of the quality of clinical care of patients who had fallen, had a fracture and had been seen in a hospital emergency department. It reckoned then that only 32% of patients with a non-hip fracture received an adequate fracture risk assessment. Just 28% were established on anti-osteoporosis medication within 12 weeks. As a result, the Department of Health incentivised primary care services to initiate these treatments for relevant patients, but, by the end of the first year of that scheme, fewer than one in five patients were receiving the treatments.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, this has been a really interesting debate and it made me think of Aneurin Bevan’s original vision, which incorporated the concept of dealing with the problem and then secondary prevention in rehabilitation and concepts of convalescence. After this debate, I am tempted to go back and read again In Place of Fear, because it is a very short book but it is worth reading.
There seems to be a theme coming through here really strongly. If we do not integrate these services and pull them together, we will never get not only the primary prevention but the secondary prevention which, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, highlighted, is so important. You do not just fix the problem; you prevent the next set of problems coming along.
I was slightly alarmed to note that in 2018 alone, there were over 6,000 deaths attributed to falls. A lot of those were on stairs. They were just simple trips on steps, yet they resulted in deaths. It took me back to when I worked at the Westminster Hospital, which, of course, is no longer across the road. Somebody tripped on the steps of the Tate and subsequently died from a head injury after hitting the concrete. One sees that at stations and so on, too, and we now see it with these scooters, where people scoot into trees and lampposts.
Anyway, to return to the subject of the amendments, the reason for my Amendment 100 is precisely to promote that rehabilitation and remind everybody that rehabilitation is not just a medical and nursing issue. It involves many different professionals, and volunteers quite often, at different levels. A rehabilitation plan at the ICS level could provide the co-ordination required, across different settings and services, to properly support early discharge from hospital, provide access to multidisciplinary teams and incorporate the psychological support that is needed. At the moment, things are organised in condition-specific medical silos, and we have already heard about the fragmentation of provision.
We need to respond more effectively to the needs of people with long-term conditions. When we come to measure outcomes, it is much easier to immediately measure the outcomes of an intervention. The outcomes from long-term secondary prevention are much more difficult to measure and quantify, particularly in a population that has multiple pathologies. So there has been poor data collection in part because it has been very difficult.
A simple example is that NICE guidelines suggested that over 1 million people with COPD every year should be referred for pulmonary rehabilitation, but only 15% are referred. We need to understand why. These are people who are breathless. They are getting chest infections and becoming oxygen dependent—so the consumption of NHS resources goes up. After a stroke, people have very marked rehabilitation needs in many different areas. That may be physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy and so on, going much more widely.
We also have a problem with our housing, because many people are not in accommodation that is suitable for them to go to when they are discharged from hospital. It has been estimated that there are 10,000 people in hospital at the moment who do not have a suitable home to go back to—hence the problem of where they go after hospital. So it is not only about providing a social care workforce to go in. We have already debated last week the problem of housing.
I do want to speak specifically to Amendment 51A in my name and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. That is about having responsibility for every person present in an area. If we take the south-west, which is dependent on tourism, it goes from relatively low populations to absolutely bursting at the seams with holidaymakers. We have all seen it. These areas have an additional problem: when people are on holiday, their guard is down, they are less vigilant about what they do and they are less risk averse. Going back to falls, they are much more likely to have a fall or an accident. People fall off cliffs, fall down surfaces and so on. All of a sudden, in the tourist season, these people are at higher risk of something going wrong. They often go away and forget to take their medication, or they take something that interferes with it and end up with different side-effects and so on. They put a huge pressure on the emergency services in the area, so I am quite concerned at the way the funding might flow, in the way this Bill is written. We could inadvertently find that some areas are incredibly pushed at certain times of the year because of the way the population moves. I hope that will be taken into consideration.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, following the impressive, high-calibre tour d’horizon from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, I rise to support the importance of proper and full rehabilitation as in Amendment 100, again supported by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. Perhaps I should have declared, at my last intervention in Committee, that I speak as a vice chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Speech and Language Difficulties—I apologise.
Very briefly, an annual plan, as in Amendment 100, would ensure that rehabilitation is explicitly integrated. Rehabilitation spans many disciplines, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said. It is what enables those who have degenerative diseases, strokes, cancer, autism and learning difficulties, to name only a few, to communicate—how essential is that for even minimal well-being?—as well as helping people to, for instance, swallow without choking and stay alive. As ever, it is the vulnerable who suffer when these structural underpinnings to ensure joined-up, consistent care are not there. I hope the Government will adopt these amendments.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, first, I apologise for arriving a little late for this debate. I hope that your Lordships will allow me to add my voice of support to this group of amendments.
We all come to this Bill with the same intentions and belief that collaboration and integration are the future for a health and care system. This group of amendments tackles the uncomfortable reality that, despite everyone’s best intentions—both in our NHS and in local government social care and even in the private sector—to collaborate and deliver integrated care, we are not doing that. A number of these amendments practically point at ways in which we can move from the rhetoric to practical change.
I particularly support Amendment 101B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Layard. As a great economist, he is pointing us in the direction of an economic structure and nudge that will force us on to a path to do what we have all talked about for a long time, which is to create parity of esteem between mental and physical health. We debated the importance of mental health in great detail last week, so I do not wish to repeat that, but I want to add my voice to that of the noble Lord in supporting his amendment because it is very practical.
By creating a ratchet that gets us on to a path whereby inch by inch—week by week, month by month and year by year—we start to close the gap between physical and mental health provision, we would start practically on the path that we want to go on without creating a funding hole. This would allow the NHS and our overall health and care system to go step by step at an achievable pace, while recognising that we come out of the Covid pandemic with such enormous physical health waiting lists that achieving parity of esteem will be even harder than it was two years ago, so it is even more important that we force a mechanism in. The second element of this amendment would also force outcome measurement.
This is a very smart and simple amendment. I know that my noble friend the Minister cares deeply about this agenda, as does the Secretary of State, and I urge them to adopt it.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to my registered interests in healthcare equipment. I have added my name to Amendment 50, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, demonstrated clearly, as have others, that it simply cannot be said that the amendment is unnecessary.
The recent report on fracture liaison services from the APPG on Osteoporosis and Bone Health makes important reading. It shows clearly that the health and independence of tens of thousands of older people who suffer from osteoporosis are threatened by great inconsistencies in accessing vital services and treatment. Far too many people are suffering multiple fractures before their condition is properly diagnosed. Much unnecessary pain is caused and more permanent disability results from failures to diagnose osteoporosis in thousands of cases. Those failures add significantly to the future costs of the NHS and care system than would have been the case with early diagnosis.
The Committee has already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Black, of the significant cost savings to the NHS where a fracture liaison service is in place. The Royal Osteoporosis Society estimates that extending fracture liaison service provision to cover the whole population would require a modest initial investment of about £27 million in England and £2 million in Wales. There should be much more long-term cost-benefit analysis of provision such as this, and it would more than justify those sums of expenditure.
There are many examples in preventive healthcare where focused interventions dramatically improve outcomes for patients and cut long-term costs. We need to raise awareness of conditions such as osteoporosis, provide more education and training for healthcare providers about diagnosing it and increase support for people who suffer from it. Osteoporosis is a long-term condition. It is more prevalent than many people realise and we should all recognise that a spinal or hip fracture is equivalent to a heart attack or stroke in terms of its clinical implications. Fractures are often preventable through use of pharmacological treatments supported by lifestyle modifications, which include appropriate exercise and smoking cessation as well as nutritional supplements such as calcium and vitamin D.
There needs to be much greater public awareness of how to maintain or improve bone health, particularly for the most at-risk populations. The introduction of integrated care boards will provide an opportunity to better co-ordinate and integrate fracture prevention and osteoporosis care. It is currently too dispersed across different parts of the system, as so often our short debate on this group of amendments has shown is the case. For fracture liaison services we need universal access. We need a clear mandate from government that the new boards have a specific responsibility to provide fracture liaison services for the whole population.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, it is clear from the number of noble Lords wishing to speak in this debate that this group of amendments is extremely important. I want to speak particularly in favour of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, about integration, which she put before us so eloquently.
In the 40-odd years that I have been working on these issues, I have never heard anyone say anything other than that collaboration would be a lot better than the current situation and that collaboration between health and social care is absolutely vital. Everyone always says that, and in recent years we even have had the hope that, when the Department of Health changed its name to the Department of Health and Social Care, we would begin to see more movements towards integration. Sadly, little progress has been made.
If one asks any patient about integration between health and social care, they think that it already exists. Most patients have absolutely no idea about different jurisdictions, how one sorts out a medical bath from a social bath or how different pots of funding ensure different points of view. That is, of course, until the patients start to find their way around the system in the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, brought so amusingly to mind. The lack of incentives to integration in the Bill are disappointing. I have not seen anything in it that will stop 15-minute visits by overworked and underpaid care staff or any ideas about integrating services and having much better integrated budgets—still less about data sharing. Those are all the things that we need if we are truly going to move to proper integration.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, reminded us, at a time when waiting lists for the NHS are growing longer by the minute, should it not be a priority to ensure that no one stays in hospital longer than they have to by having discharge procedures that provide a seamless transition and making sure that the all-too-frequent readmission because of inadequate co-operation between the NHS and local authorities does not happen? We hear that care jobs are unfulfilled and that requests for care are turned down because of staff shortages. Local authorities struggle to recruit enough workers to meet increasing demands. No wonder that that is the case when one can earn more by filling shelves at Sainsbury’s.
A truly integrated service would mean that, the minute that someone is admitted to hospital, plans should be being made between health services, social care and the often-ignored but often significant voluntary services about what is going to happen on discharge. Sadly, the usual pattern is for a conflict to emerge, usually on a Friday afternoon, between a hospital ward desperate to empty beds and social care services inadequately prepared or even informed. What happens? The person goes home, the care services are not adequate and so the person is readmitted to hospital. I know someone in my local area in Herefordshire, an elderly lady who has been admitted 14 separate times since last July, and still care services to keep her adequately at home are not provided.
The Bill is a failed opportunity because we are seeing social care once again as the poor relation, the tail-end Charlie, that is considered after everything else is settled. Social care could be at the heart of a levelling-up agenda if we had a vision for its workforce and the impact that it has on the health of a community in the broadest sense. Care providers could be encouraged to diversify their businesses to reach out creatively into the community by providing tax incentives, for example, or reductions on business rates. If we want a high-skill, high-wage economy, what better place to start than social care, with its huge workforce badly paid but certainly not unskilled? Those skills could be developed by providing training, and retention could be dealt with by better career progression and recognition of qualifications. It is sad that we are not looking at practical ways in which to develop that integration in the Bill.
Fixing social care requires two things: money and better integration. We will come on to money later in the Bill. For the moment, I hope that the Government will give proper recognition of and acceptance to the amendment on integration in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I had intended to put my name to them; I apologise to the noble Baroness for being so slow off the mark. I also strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Layard.
Both these amendments, in their different ways, go some way to righting what I consider to be two big wrongs inflicted on local government in the past, where responsibilities have been transferred to it but have not had their funding sustained into the future. The first was the closure of long-stay hospitals in the 1980s and 1990s. When I was a director of social services, I was the NHS’s favourite person when building provision and making available services for people coming out of long-stay hospitals. After a few years, I and my many colleagues became forgotten men and women because the money that was transferred was never maintained in real terms over a couple of decades.
Fast-forward to the 1990s and the setting up, with much enthusiasm, of the Roy Griffiths community care changes. These enabled the Government to get off the hook of an expanding social security budget. It was another repeat performance: the money was not maintained in real terms in the longer term. What we saw in both cases was local government having to pick up the tab without support from the Government—successive Governments, that is; I am not making a party-political point—to ensure that those services could be maintained for the people who became the responsibility of local government.
The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, remind people that there is an obligation to make sure that both health and social care produce good outcomes for the people who are now primarily the responsibility of local government, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, gently reminded us, has been underfunded over a long time in terms of maintaining these services. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Layard, is another righting of a wrong and we should all get behind it.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 85 and 88 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.
We must be clear. The previous two speeches highlighted the elephant in the room: you cannot have integration on a sustainable basis unless you reform health and social care together. We have to be honest with ourselves that this Bill is predominantly about the reform of healthcare.
That was highlighted eloquently in the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in response to my noble friend Lady Barker, about who should commission sexual health services. These have been lobbed to the side of the commissioning silo but it should be about how to break down this silo so that we have joint and sustainable commissioning around outcomes, rather than around which silo or which part of the health and social care framework should deal with it. It is the elephant in the room, but we are where we are so we must make this Bill better knowing that that is the real issue.
This is about three little words: social care services. It is clear to those who understand health and social care that the Bill has been written predominantly through the lens of healthcare. I do not blame anybody for that but clearly this is a healthcare commissioning reform Bill, with a little tinkering with the structure, and does not deal predominantly with those people who do not understand social care—unless they are asking for an NHS long-term care package, when the argument tends to be about not the care provided but the funding, including who is going to fund what part. That is when it affects people’s outcomes. Those three little words are really important, which is why the noble Baroness’s amendments are important. If they were accepted, the Bill would actually say that social care service and health outcomes are jointly important.
It is important that this is about integration. The noble Baronesses, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Hollins, said that there is a significant difference between collaboration and integration. You can have two people collaborate but, if their silos send them in different directions, the outcomes will not be joint. The real issue is how we bring about integration. It will not solve all the problems but it will help to bring about the first stage of integration if you have a joint framework on outcomes for which both healthcare and social care are held accountable. That is why Amendment 88 is so important.
The Bill’s intention goes in the right direction but the three amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, will significantly help in that journey. They will not solve the problems fully but they are an important way to say to people who work in health and social care that they will be held responsible for the outcomes of individuals, whether their needs come under healthcare or social care. That is why I support these amendments.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 101B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Layard. Before I speak to it, I want to say how much I agree with the sentiment expressed by noble Lords on all Benches that true integration will be achieved only if the Bill is as much about social care as it is about health. It is such a fundamental point that I wanted to underline it.
I see Amendment 101B as an important continuation of our deliberations last week on parity of esteem because “parity of esteem” are simply meaningless words unless they are reflected in the provision of funding. First, like the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, I acknowledge the welcome fact that NHS England has met its commitment to ensure that the increase in local funding for mental health is at least in line with the overall increase in the money available to CCGs through the mental health investment standard. It is also welcome that, from 2019-20 onwards, as part of the NHS long-term plan, that standard also includes a further commitment that local funding for mental health will grow by an additional percentage increment to reflect the additional mental health funding being made available to CCGs. I recognise all of that.
But—and it is a big but—the investment standard relates only to CCGs, and that total spending had already declined in 2019-20 compared with 2018-19 as a percentage of total NHSE revenue spend. Also, given the urgent need for healthcare, which, as other noble Lords have said, has been much exacerbated by the pandemic, this amendment would help strengthen the consideration of mental health services when large amounts of money are announced for Covid recovery—this is welcome—but it all falls outside the remit of the mental health investment standard.
We need to know how much of the money is currently going to preventive and community services—prevention is the overarching theme of this group of amendments—as opposed to acute services. We also need to know whether the spending increases we are seeing are simply because crisis services are so in demand; indeed, they are overwhelmed in some cases. We know from a recent survey by the Royal College of Psychiatrists that two-fifths of patients awaiting mental health treatment contact emergency or crisis services, with one in nine ending up in A&E. That is not a sustainable position.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, this has been an extremely rich and informative debate on a diverse set of amendments. My contribution will be fairly brief, but I want first to reflect on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about the elephant in the room. He reflected on many other contributions about the lack of real integration of health and social care in the Bill, and the way the Bill is essentially written for health. I do not disagree with that identification of that elephant, but a second giant creature in the room is being ignored—let us call it a mammoth—which is the lack of adequate funding and numbers of people for health and social care. That means that those silos are seeking to defend their funding and resources, and reserve it for what they see as their core functions. They therefore find it very difficult to reach out and stretch into new areas even where that would have huge net positive impact overall.
To reflect on a couple of other things, I heartily endorse the call from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for a reverse Beeching for the NHS with the reopening of community hospitals. I am not sure whether he coined that phrase; I might borrow it, if he does not mind.
I will also comment on Amendment 51A in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Jolly, about emergency services going to everyone in the area. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, is in his place. This very much ties in with an amendment that he spoke to on Tuesday. He told a tale, which I will not repeat, about a case in which someone was denied a treatment in a neighbouring area that they desperately needed because of arguments about which area they were in. This is potentially a huge problem with the structure we are creating that has to be taken on board. Amendment 51A deals with the responsibility, but of course there also have to be funds to go with that responsibility.
It has not got a lot of attention, but I also commend Amendment 100 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on the duty to promote rehabilitation. When we talk about dramatic medical interventions—the high-profile stuff—it is generally acknowledged, but always as an afterthought, that the person who has had that big dramatic intervention will not suddenly be cured tomorrow, in most cases. There is a long process of recovery. Indeed, I have put on my reading list Recovery: The Lost Art of Convalescence by Dr Gavin Francis, which has been glowingly reviewed in many places. That is something we all should be thinking about a lot more.
Finally, I come to Amendment 110, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to which I attached my name because, as the noble Baroness said in her introduction, this is something that we have addressed again and again in the police Bill and the Domestic Abuse Act, but it is very acutely an NHS problem. I draw on an article from the Nursing Times on 24 December. It is an account of a nurse, who was called Claire in the article. When she was going through a checklist with a patient that had been provided by a charity—this was something extra added in from the outside, not core NHS—she realised that she herself was a victim of domestic abuse. She had said yes to more of the questions than the patient had. That is a demonstration of what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said: training is not given to medical professionals to see what is happening to themselves and to their patients. Maybe it is added in because a charity has managed to get something into the system, but it will certainly not be across the system.
We hope we are doing this Bill for the long term—although perhaps we are not so certain, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said—but we have to note that this is happening in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. I note that the NHS sexual assault referral figures for the first half of 2020 dropped significantly. That also picks up a great deal of domestic abuse, yet online searches for domestic abuse were up by 350% in the same period. We have an NHS that has been forced to focus on the Covid-19 pandemic, often drawing away resources that might have started to deal with domestic abuse anyway. We have a huge rise in the problem. Considering the moment we are at now, it is crucial that domestic abuse is in the Bill.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, this is an enormously important debate because it deals with my favourite word in health and care: prevention. Prevention is so important because it is cost effective. Although successive Governments give more and more to health services, no Government will ever be able to give enough to the NHS, because we have an ageing population and innovative medical interventions are getting more and more expensive, unless we do things differently and more cost effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, outlined one very good, cost-effective intervention. It is an excellent example of something that has absolutely powerful evidence of its cost effectiveness but which is not being undertaken everywhere. I would like to know what evidence those areas that are not using fracture liaison services have that their way of doing it is better and more cost effective. I do not think they have that evidence. It is an example of where if you do not mandate it they will not all do it, and then they will not be spending their money effectively. I support the noble Lord’s amendment.
It is also very important that we prevent not just the second fall but the first, because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said in her very important intervention, including what she said about tourist areas, which is very significant, people do die from falls. I had a very old friend who recently did. It was the first fall. I am afraid that person died because he had internal bleeding that nobody spotted. It is really important.
My noble friend Lord Rennard mentioned something really important that is pre-primary intervention: health education. If you know that you are likely to have good, strong, healthy bones from weight-bearing exercise and a diet that has enough calcium and vitamin D, you are much less likely to have the first fall. Fortunately for the Minister, that is beyond his remit. I am sure he is pleased about that, because he has quite enough to do. The Department for Education should listen to that.
My noble friends on these Benches have highlighted some other areas where effective prevention services are not being done properly. I think we were all struck by the chaotic situation that my noble friend Lady Barker highlighted; something really has to be done about that. A lot of good has been done but a lot more could be done, and, again, it would be cost-effective.
The noble Lord, Lord Layard, has suggested a very cost-effective intervention. If we diagnose and intervene on mental health issues early then we can prevent all kinds of more severe mental and physical health problems. I support the ratchet method that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, referred to of increasing the amount of funding that goes there. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, rightly listed the number of times that the Government have put more money into mental health services, the question is: have they kept up with the demand and the backlog? I do not think they have.
We have an opportunity in the Bill to improve our measures to prevent ill health, as well as treat it, which is of course more cost-effective, especially when services are delivered by small social enterprises working at community level. I have added my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, because I believe these prevention services should be available as close as possible to those who need them most. If that does not happen then the people who need them will not access them, and health inequality will continue.
That is particularly important for those communities where health inequality is at its worst and where preventable diseases are most prevalent. For example, the services might include healthy weight management services, therapies to address less severe mental health conditions, and alcohol and drug addiction services, in addition to the usual GP services. The population groups are not just those in poverty but marginalised groups such as homeless people, those in temporary accommodation, refugees, Gypsy and Traveller communities, and others who may not be plugged into regular services, and that includes those in rural areas.
Many of these services are delivered very effectively by social enterprises or charities, where any surpluses are ploughed straight back into more services. Many of them also provide weekend services, which were mentioned as lacking by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. Boards that do not ensure the survival of such services are really missing a trick that would help them to deliver their duty to level up health inequalities, because these organisations are usually very close to their communities and know exactly what is needed and where. They are not constrained by the regulations or the culture of large organisations, and are therefore more flexible and fleet of foot, and therefore very cost-effective.
On rural areas, I shall give your Lordships a brief example from my noble friend Lady Jolly, who lives in a very remote part of Cornwall. She says:
“We have a satellite surgery in our local village, it is in the ground floor of an old cottage. The pharmacist visits once a week, and a practice nurse visits once a week. When she is seeing a patient they have to switch the radio on so that no one can hear the conversation”—
because of patient confidentiality. In that village you have to drive 20 miles to reach a GP. That is the sort of place where we really need community access to health services of all kinds. It would be nice to think that the ICB would be aware of that and act accordingly, and it might perhaps be worth putting a duty in the Bill.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, this is an assortment of amendments that are all linked to the core of the Bill, which is about integration. The issues, as ever, are about whether it is appropriate to place such a detailed level of specification in the Bill, and where.
Amendment 50 seeks equity of access for fracture liaison services. In many ways the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Black, supported by my noble friend Lord Hunt and others, is about the balance between a national mandate and local delivery in order to ensure that there is equity of access—in this case, for fracture liaison services. I would be interested to learn how the Minister believes such a thing could be implemented and assured, and in how we can best express that in the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, covering issues around prevention, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, and talking about what we mean by integration and how we make sure that it is more than just a word. I remind noble Lords that we have a forthcoming paper on integration as part of the overall package of the Bill, and a social care paper as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, mentioned culture and attitude. I think it is very important to recognise that you can change structures and have legislation but you have to make sure that the culture and attitude are right across the system. I say to noble Lords that we fully sympathise with the intentions and I hope I can offer some reassurance.
In my departmental job as Minister for Technology, Innovation and Life Sciences, I feel very strongly that one way to drive integration is through better use of data across the system. Even before we look at integrating with social care, the NHS as it is at the moment is not sharing data well across the system. There are still a number of inefficiencies. I really believe in the digital transformation agenda and will give a quick example of that.
Just before Christmas, at a time when the NHS was under extreme pressure, I had my annual check-up in two parts. One part was an ECG at a local community centre; the second was supposed to be a telephone conversation with a consultant a week later. When the phone call came from the consultant, he started talking and I had to stop him. I said, “Have you seen my ECG results?” and he said, “No. What ECG? When was that?” I said, “This is all part of the same appointment. Can I now give you the date and time when I had it so you can look at the results?” “Don’t worry about that,” he said, “we’ll just have to make a new appointment”.
This was at a time when the NHS was under extreme pressure, as it is every winter. That shows the challenge. Even though we have been talking about the integration of health services since 1948, we still have these problems. That is why I believe so strongly in the digitisation and data-sharing challenge. It is not just because I am a geek and love technology; it really can make a difference, save money and lives and mean a more effective service all around.
I start by addressing Amendment 50 on fracture liaison services. Fracture liaison services and fragility fracture prevention are recognised by NHS England as critical to both healthy ageing and elective recovery. Within its high-impact restoration strategy, NHS England recommends that all systems optimise the secondary prevention of fragility fractures. NHS England is working closely with stakeholders to support the implementation of secondary fracture prevention services where they do not exist already and to support sustainability and quality improvement where services exist. Once again, this will rely on good data being shared across the system.
There are already duties in the Bill to require ICBs to commission such services. As fracture liaison services aim to identify people at risk and therefore prevent future fractures, their provision would already be covered in Clause 16 under new Section 3(1)(h), which places a duty on ICBs to commission such services or facilities for prevention, care and aftercare as the ICB considers appropriate. As I hope noble Lords will agree, it would be inappropriate to be overly specific in setting out the services to be commissioned as part of the new Section 3 that would be inserted by Clause 16, given the wide range of services the NHS needs to commission. However, I hope I can give assurances to noble Lords that NHS England will continue to monitor this and ensure that ICBs are commissioning effective fracture services. I hope we continue to drive this data being shared appropriately.
I turn to Amendment 51A. It makes sense that people should be able to receive emergency treatment wherever they are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, alluded to. We believe that is already the case. Once again, data would make a huge difference. If I am in Newcastle and fall off my bike and am taken to hospital, and if I have an existing condition, would it not be great if the clinicians when they triage me could know about it? I have asked my local GP practice to share my data on the app and it still has not done it. The mechanisms are there but the culture and attitudes are a huge challenge for whichever Government are in power.
The Bill confers a power on NHS England to publish rules that determine the people for whom each ICB is responsible. Those rules must make sure that everyone registered in the area, or everyone who may have need of services, is looked after. The Secretary of State may make regulations expanding that responsibility or creating exceptions where necessary. This was the case with existing CCGs and will continue under the ICBs. I hope I can reassure your Lordships that these regulations will be replaced to ensure continuity in this between CCGs and ICBs,
I now turn to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and his amendment. I also thank him for sharing his wisdom and his experience of family hubs. It is incredibly important. We agree with the spirit behind Amendment 57. We fully agree that, generally speaking, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, prevention is better than cure. One of the things that I have been reassured by in my early conversations in my role as a Minister for Health is the number of people in meetings who have said that they want to move towards a focus on prevention. That is not avoiding cure. We have to tackle cure, of course, but we can avoid a lot of that and save resources and time and promote better health and healthy living if we focus on prevention.
There are also duties in relation to the improvement of services for the prevention of illnesses as well as a duty to obtain appropriate advice, which expressly includes a requirement to seek advice from people with expertise in the prevention of illness. The NHS is already working hard to prevent ill health but, once again, we have to make sure that, in this prevention, people are all talking to each other, we are learning from best practice, and ICBs and trusts are learning from each other. As a number of noble Lords have made clear in their contributions in Committee, the issue is wider and social prescribing, for example, and other issues are really important.
Commissioners have also developed good practice, including funding alcohol care teams and tobacco treatment teams in hospitals, and expanding the diabetes prevention programme. This was re-emphasised in the NHS Long Term Plan, which contained commitments for the NHS to focus on major causes of ill health such as smoking, poor diet, high blood pressure, obesity and alcohol and drug use.
I remind noble Lords that prevention is not simply also a matter for ICBs. It involves local authorities and sometimes law enforcement authorities. It is a multiagency approach, led by local authorities but with ICBs, the NHS and other agencies playing their role.
I acknowledge the point that my noble friend made about cannabis and young people and I will write in more detail about that rather than take up time now. But we also have to look at such issues in the round. For example, in the United States Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute wrote that a lot of drug enforcement or anti-drug policy disproportionately affects young black men who then get thrown into the criminal justice system. How do we tackle that? One of the interesting conversations I have had with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was about his experience as borough commander in south London, an area that my noble friend mentioned. He gave the example that young black men in possession of drugs were far more likely to be picked up than a white middle-class male or female.
We have to make sure that we look at this as a whole. When we look at the tackling inequalities strand that we all feel so strongly about, we have to make sure we get the right balance. It is, of course, very difficult on a case-by-case basis but we have to be aware of unintended consequences.
On the integration duty, we are sympathetic to the intent behind the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and support greater integration between health and social care. We hope that we can make sure that stakeholders work together and that, with all the papers, we are able to push through this integration.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I hesitate to take the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, away from her, but she is talking about putting a duty for this integration in the Bill. That is the way forward. Assurance is not the point here. I think we have gone past the point of needing assurance. We have been assured about this for years. This is about the duty.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I was just about to come to duty, so I thank the noble Baroness for hurrying me along.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I do not think that the Minister really understands. Yes, there may be a duty on local authorities. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness is basically a duty to promote integration. At the moment, the Bill says that:
“Each integrated care board must exercise its functions with a view to securing that”
health services are provided in an integrated way. The amendment says “and social care”. It then justifies at what point that integration must be done. Why does the Minister feel that not putting this in the Bill somehow strengthens the main aim of the Bill, which is to look at the integration of health and social care for individuals who are going through a health and social care episode?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Bill complements these existing duties by placing an equivalent duty on ICBs to integrate the provision of health services with the provision of health-related services and social care services, where this will lead to improvements in quality or reductions in inequalities. Taken together with the wider introduction of integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships, this gives the NHS and local authorities the best platform on which to build new ways of working. New provisions in the Bill will also complement and reinvigorate existing place-based structures for integration between the NHS and social care, such as health and well-being boards, the better care fund and pooled budget arrangements. We will, of course, be listening throughout the passage of this Bill to other ways in which we can facilitate the NHS, local authorities and others to work together to deliver integrated care for patients and the public.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I am sorry and will not delay the House much longer, but this is a really important point: the heart of the Bill.
As the Bill is written at the moment, the only integration that the integrated care board is responsible for is to ensure that health services are integrated. That means integrating primary, mental health and acute. It does not say that it is for the integration of social care. That is exactly what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve. As this is written, is it not the case that the duty in the Bill is for the ICB to secure that only health services are integrated?
Lord Kamall (Con)
One of the reasons for the introduction of integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships is to give local systems, both NHS and local authorities, a platform on which to build new ways of working. That includes social care. If the noble Lord feels that this duty is not explicit enough or that we should bring it out, we should have further conversations.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
The architecture is very curious regarding why we must have an integrated care board and integrated care partnerships. It has never been clear to me why the Government have not attempted to set up a health and care board to bring those services together. We know that the funding systems will be different and that there is a clear difference between free at the point of use and means-tested social care, but surely that is what an integrated board, jointly owned by the NHS and local government, with councillors at the table not officers, is trying to sort out. Why have we ended up with this nonsense of a structure? We are carrying on with health and well-being boards as well. That is the great puzzle here.
If the Government are not willing to move on that, we must come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. By splitting it, you then must say to the integrated care board, “Ah, but in your duties, you must ensure that you integrate with social care as well.” It really is a mess. The Minister said earlier that this is what the NHS wanted. Yes, this is an NHS Bill designed by NHS managers with a focus on the NHS. I do not know why it is called a care Bill, because it has nothing to do with care.
Lord Warner (CB)
Before the Minister responds to that, can I amplify what is being refused here by the Government? As I understand it, he is trying to rely on the Care Act to get local government to co-operate and integrate care with the great elephant, the NHS. This is asking a minor player to take on a major player with far more resources. Amendment 89, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, makes the NHS come back every two years about the outcomes. That is a fairly modest challenge to the NHS and I fail to understand why the Government cannot simply accept that in principle and then negotiate the drafting.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I am so sorry to delay the Minister again, but briefly. After we have pushed this Bill through Parliament, we will have an integration Bill and a White Paper and legislation on social care. When we have had this, those and those, can we come back to this?
Lord Kamall (Con)
These are all building blocks. I thought that might get a laugh.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, ICPs were the idea of the Local Government Association, and we want to ensure that they work with the ICBs. Also, we must recognise that local authorities are accountable to their local electorates and fund many of the services for which they are responsible from local taxation. While we encourage local authorities and the NHS to work together as much as possible and pool their budgets where it is beneficial for local people, we are not mandating this, as this would probably require significant shift in how local authorities are held accountable for managing their money. One of the reasons why we have this strange ICB-ICP partnership is to ensure that it is at the right level and, beneath that, to have the health and well-being boards at place level. I sense the strength of feeling in the Committee, and I see the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, giving a wry smile.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
I love this debate—it is brilliant—but it makes the point that this is an ideal opportunity to pre-empt a later Bill and get on with the job now where it belongs. Given the strength of feeling in the Committee, if we cannot reach a solution to this, I will bring it back on Report.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I feel for the Minister in his position. He is right: people observing our proceedings will see us laughing, but in practice this is really serious. I talk to colleagues in local government who receive endless requests from the NHS to turn up to meetings and they do not go, and why? It is not because they do not think that it is important, but because local government has been hollowed out over the last 10 years to the point where it has very senior management and front-line staff, and does not have large numbers of people in the middle doing middle-management planning jobs that exist in the NHS. That was the reality before Covid and is the reality now. Each of those building blocks that the Minister is putting in may be some great stepping-stone to a nirvana for the NHS, but they are just another obstacle for local government. It is so important that we in this House are not tied to constituencies or particular areas of importance. Speak truth to power—to the Government. We are building something unsustainable that will not work.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her sympathy for my role. Debates like this are important. They give the Government a measure of the strength of feeling on particular issues. It would be blind for me not to acknowledge the strength of feeling and the support for the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. As I have done with some of the other issues discussed in this debate, I will take this back to the department and call a meeting of those who are interested, as we did for mental health, and hopefully we can have a discussion to find a way forward. I thank noble Lords for expressing the strength of their feeling. It is very helpful to know where we can focus time and resources as we try to get this Bill through and ensure that it is workable and leads to the integration that we all want to see.
I will also add that NHS England intends to assess ICBs, as I does CCGs. This may not be reassuring, given some of the strength of feeling about NHS England’s drive behind the Bill. The CQC will also make assessments of ICSs and systems, and part of that will be to consider how health and social care are working together.
I will now talk about rehabilitation—not of my career but of health. Our intention with this legislation is to establish overarching principles and requirements, while allowing ICBs space and discretion. This means avoiding being prescriptive, wherever possible. I am sure that noble Lords acknowledge that. Looking at the duties on ICBs that are relevant here, the first—in Clause 16—requires an ICB to arrange for the provision of the listed services it considers necessary to meet the needs of those for whom it is responsible. This includes aftercare which, in turn, includes rehabilitation. The ICB is also required to develop a joint forward plan, setting out how it will meet the health needs of its population—which should consider rehabilitation. ICBs are also under a duty to seek continuous improvement in the quality of care. That of course has to include rehabilitation. We hope that, without legislating for the production of a separate annual plan, ICBs will be required to provide, and improve provision of, community rehabilitation services.
I turn to Amendment 101B. I can assure noble Lords that the Government fully support the increased focus on mental health spending. I thank noble Lords who met with me earlier this week to discuss some of the issues around mental health and how we make sure that it gets the profile it deserves. We are trying to move towards parity between mental and physical health, and indeed all other types of health service. If I may, I will leave that there for now. If we have to continue the conversations about mental health, those who were not invited to this week’s meeting might like to drop me an email to let me know if they are interested in joining the meetings, and I will make sure that the Bill team invites them.
I am trying to get through this as quickly as possible. Turning to Amendment 110, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for the conversations we have had on inequalities, particularly in rural areas. A number of noble Lords alluded to this. I should also like to record my thanks to noble Lords in the Committee and in the other place who have campaigned so strongly on this issue. We have listened. The amendments already accepted in Clause 20 have directly addressed the need to consider victims of abuse, including victims of domestic and sexual abuse.
Clause 20 ensures that integrated care boards and their partner NHS trusts and foundation trusts set out a joint forward plan for any steps that the ICB proposes to take forward. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, we also have to make sure that this is not seen as just an NHS issue. We want to make sure that we work more widely with all agencies in the area to tackle these issues. For these reasons, we do not feel that a separate strategy is necessary in the Bill. Also, the accepted amendment is more comprehensive. It covers all forms of abuse. There are also duties on CCGs to consider the needs of victims of violence, including a joint strategic needs assessment. CCGs must respond to these, and this will be transferred to the ICBs.
Under the Government’s new Domestic Abuse Act, local healthcare systems will be required to contribute to domestic abuse local partnership boards. It is also worth noting that the Government are undertaking wider work to protect and support victims of domestic violence. Clearly, further action is needed beyond the NHS. In particular, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will require action from across government, and we will ensure that this work is aligned as much as possible.
The proposed amendment would place a requirement on ICBs to have a domestic abuse and sexual violence lead. We agree with the principle, but we think we can do this effectively through existing legislation and guidance, as set out in the Government’s recent violence against women and girls strategy. My department will engage with ICBs and partnerships to make sure that we have appropriate guidance.
Beyond ICBs, there is a huge opportunity for ICPs to support improved services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and other forms of harm through better partnerships. I hope that I have given noble Lords some assurance about this.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, even by the standards of your Lordships’ House, this has been an exceptional debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said that this is a really important set of amendments which go right to the heart of the Bill. They cover a remarkable range of issues. I, for one, am profoundly grateful to all the speakers who have taken part.
I think we all have some sympathy for my noble friend the Minister. He will have heard a number of messages loud and clear. I would like to mention the powerful contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, with her very important personal insights on the issue of fractures and the problems in rural communities. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, gave us a comprehensive view of the integration of services. It certainly struck a chord with me, as I am currently grappling with the problems faced by an elderly friend who is seriously ill and for whom these issues are very real and distressing. My noble friend Lady McIntosh told her own story of osteopenia, which underlined how vital early diagnosis and treatment are.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. I think we all welcome his comments on data and digitisation. These are obviously good, but it is not just about data or monitoring, nor about building blocks, however important they are. It is about structures and obligations, and about effective integration being written into the Bill.
I am afraid that the elephant in the room, identified by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is still sitting out there. The Minister will have seen the strength of feeling of the House. As he said, there should be further conversations, which I think everybody would welcome. Otherwise, these issues will come back on Report.
It is essential that we tackle the issue of bone health and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, this Bill is the right place to do it. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, summed it up superbly. We have known the benefits of proper prevention for a very long time, but progress has been at a snail’s pace. There was no answer to that point. In purely economic terms, as well as for the care of individuals, this is—in the vernacular—a no-brainer. If we do not make progress, we are letting down patients, taxpayers and the NHS.
I hope we can make further progress on all the points that have been raised by noble Lords in this extraordinary debate. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“3AA Duty of integrated care boards to commission approved treatments(1) This section applies where—(a) a treatment has been approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence,(b) an integrated care board has not arranged for the provision of that treatment under section 3 or 3A, and(c) a clinician has recommended that treatment for a person for whom that integrated care board has responsibility.(2) The integrated care board must arrange for the provision of that treatment to the person for whom it has responsibility.(3) In subsection (1) “clinician” means a medical professional employed by or acting on behalf of an NHS Trust, NHS Foundation Trust or primary care service from whom the integrated care board has arranged for the provision of services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require an integrated care board to arrange for the provision of a NICE-approved treatment to any patient whose NHS clinician has recommended it, even if that treatment is not otherwise available to patients in that ICB area.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will speak particularly to Amendments 54, 74 and 97 in this group. I warmly thank the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Hunt, for lending their support to all three amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for supporting Amendment 74. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and his historic work prior to the setting up of NICE; it was a great contribution that deserves to be recognised.
We are all aware of the procedure that, when a medicine is approved, it goes through two processes. First, it goes to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, known as the MHRA, a body which checks whether a drug is safe and effectively does what it says on the tin. It then goes through a separate process run by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, known as NICE, which looks at cost-effectiveness and value for money. After those two hurdles have been passed, the medicines should, theoretically, be accessible to anyone. That is very clear in the NHS constitution, which explains that there is a legal right for people to have access to NHS NICE-approved drugs if it is right in their particular circumstances that they should. Indeed, the NICE guidelines say very clearly that there should be automatic adoption within 90 days of approval, if clinically appropriate and relevant.
For a drug then to be prescribed, it must not only have been approved by NICE but go on to the approved list of drugs in the local health authorities, called a formulary. The problem is that somebody must put the drug on the formulary and, currently, while in theory there is a system under the NHS NICE guidelines, this does not actually happen. Sadly, this results in a postcode lottery where some areas have the product on their formulary and others do not. Sometimes this is a process failure, but sometimes it is to avoid budget overspends. Therefore, I would say that it is at the patient’s expense that they are deprived of the drug.
To give an example of the problem, there is currently a drug for multiple sclerosis that patients are still waiting after 150 days to see go on to the formularies in around 25% of the local health systems across the country. There is a state-of-the-art flash monitor for type 1 diabetes, but the uptake across the country varies between 16% and 65%. What is most worrying is that those parts of the country with the greatest levels of deprivation have the lowest level of uptake.
I make a plea to the Minister: in my view, ICBs should be required to ensure that all NICE-approved medicines and devices are available and promoted to their population, because the cost of these drugs is covered by the VPAS reimbursement scheme agreed between the NHS and the pharmaceutical industry. If a treatment is unavailable in one ICB footprint, they should be required to commission the required treatment from another ICB. The Government should also promote uptake through the ICBs of NICE-approved medicines and report uptake of new medicines annually.
Amendment 54 would require an ICB to arrange for provision of a NICE-approved treatment to any patient whose NHS clinician has recommended it, even if that treatment is not otherwise available to patients in that ICB area. Amendment 74 would require ICBs to ensure that all NICE approvals are available and promoted to their population via a publicly accessible format, normally online, and to report on their uptake annually. Amendment 97 would mandate integrated care boards and healthcare providers, notably hospital trusts, to update their formularies to include all NICE-approved medicines or devices within 28 days of market authorisation, to ensure they are available for healthcare practitioners, through either their physician, for example, or prescribing pharmacist, to make available for suitable patients.
I thank those who submitted briefings to me while I was preparing for today, notably JDRF, which makes a number of recommendations on this issue, particularly in regard to type 1 diabetes. These aim to reduce inequalities, remove the postcode lotteries to which I referred and make sure that treatments, such as those for type 1 diabetes, are uniformly available across the piece. I also thank EMIG, a pharmaceutical trade association for small and medium-sized companies, for its briefing. It says that the uptake of NICE-approved medicines is critical for NHS patients to benefit from the latest and most promising innovations. Finally, I am grateful to Vertex Pharmaceuticals, which submitted a briefing that again supports the conclusions reached. Among the proposals it highlights is the introduction of a modifier to take account of the severity of a disease and efforts to more fairly consider uncertainty in the evidence for highly innovative and complex treatments for rare and severe diseases, including through greater use of real-world evidence.
On this small group of amendments, I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has to say in connection with her neat, simple amendment, which would strengthen what we are proposing to do here. I urge the Minister and the department to address these postcode lotteries and make sure that NICE does not just make the guidelines but ensures that treatments reach the formularies and ultimately the patient in question. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendments 54, 74 and 97, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and Amendment 163, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I too pay tribute to the historic work of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, prior to the setting up of NICE.
While it is not an interest in the formal sense, I declare that I have autoimmune disease and have experience of being on the NICE rheumatoid arthritis care and treatment pathway for 19 years, which has been regularly updated by NICE over that time. Where it has been applied in full and from diagnosis, patients have found it very beneficial and, with new and more effective drugs being approved every few years, many are now in remission. I pay tribute to the consultants trying to do their best for their patients and the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society and Versus Arthritis helplines which support RA patients in navigating their way through access to their NICE treatments when these have been blocked.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her introduction to this group and for explaining the problem with the formulary list. She is right that this should be addressed formally. However, I want to focus on some of the commissioning practices on NICE-recommended treatments, including those on the formulary, in the current CCGs, because I believe these explain the need for the amendments in this group.
In May 2014, the High Court ruled that Thanet CCG could not disagree with NICE guidance merely because it disagreed with it, even when there is no statutory duty to provide that treatment. This specific case was about access to fertility treatments for a woman who was about to undergo bone marrow transplantation to put her severe form of Crohn’s disease into remission. NICE’s 2013 clinical guidance recommended that
“oocyte or embryo cryopreservation as appropriate”
should be offered
“to women of reproductive age … who are preparing for medical treatment for cancer that is likely to make them infertile”.
This was not cancer, and the CCG’s own policy was to not grant funding unless there were exceptional circumstances.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My noble friend Lord Patel has had to leave because of pre-booked travel, but he has given me the honour—and it is an honour—of having his brief speaking notes, from which I would like to start, and then move on.
Before I get on to that, I think it is important for us to remember that NICE was set up to establish the evidence base behind what we do. Before NICE was established—and I have worked with Deirdre Hine, who was very involved in setting it up when she was Chief Medical Officer for Wales—people were doing things because they had always done them and because they liked doing them that way, with no evidence base, and often they were doing things that made situations worse, not better.
As Lord Patel wanted to stress, clinicians have a strong belief now in evidence-based healthcare, and guidelines are critical to ensure high and consistent levels of evidence-based clinical practice across the NHS. The guidelines developed by NICE can be adapted to the local situation, and they are also under review. I should declare that I have served for three years as vice-chair of the group looking at ME/CFS guidelines, and it was very instructive to see the depth to which everything was explored and the rigour of the processes; to the point that, when we were asked to review again some papers, we went back to the beginning and reviewed them all over again. Interestingly, in doing that, we slightly downgraded their scoring, rather than upgrading it, which is what had been expected. I was really impressed at the rigour of the process, including the health economics impact.
That experience has been behind the push to make sure that there is compliance. My proposed amendment would be a way of assessing compliance with the guidelines as predetermined and set out in the NHS mandate. The mandate could select a few that would act as proxy markers across the piece and include a date line, so that their implementation across the country could be benchmarked. It would not increase the workload, because it could draw on existing sources of data in the NHS. As the Minister has said, data is our key to understanding and unlocking things.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in her comprehensive introduction to this group of amendments, spoke about type 1 diabetes and highlighted that, in some areas, the adoption of continuous glucose monitoring is as low as 0%, whereas in other areas it is up to 20%. There are a couple of other emerging areas; one is in atrial fibrillation, where direct oral anticoagulants have made warfarin a drug of the past. Yet the variation between clinical commissioning groups’ adoption of the guidance is quite horrifying. There is a threefold variation in prescribing, so there are areas of the country where a lot of patients are being denied an intervention that has been shown to be beneficial compared to what was done before.
We have already alluded to another emerging area: the new biologics. On the face of it, they are very expensive, but they are often remarkably effective—they can revolutionise the management of some diseases. We have a budgetary problem here, because the NHS budgets are year-on-year, and the face-value cost of the new biologics is very high; but if you look at the whole lifetime cost of healthcare interventions then they come out much lower. Take the example alluded to, of Crohn’s disease, and consider the cost of someone having their bowel removed, who might then end up on total parenteral nutrition; it is not only the cost of that nutrition but the costs in all other domains in their life, and the lives of their family. In comparison, the new biologics can rapidly get this disease’s process under control and revolutionise things.
The proposal is to give the CQC the powers routinely to address the adherence to guidelines—that would be specified by the NHS mandate, so a national standard could be set—and introduce a reporting metric using current data sources as a starting point to establish a benchmark. I want to stress, as I know does my noble friend Lord Patel, that we are not advocating for guidelines to be mandatory—that would not be right, because each patient is different and individual—but we are asking for a system to be introduced that gives powers so that there can be scrutiny of whether the guidelines are being adopted, because their adoption would narrow the gap in inequalities. We both feel that we need to commit to address this in this important legislation, because it is a way of achieving tangible action to ensure equity in access to quality in healthcare.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to the three amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has referred to. I was the first Minister for NICE, going back to 1999. At that time, we were confronted with a paradox which continues to this day, which is that, although the NHS is full of innovation and we have an incredibly strong life sciences sector and industry, the NHS is also very slow to adopt those innovations. NICE was developed to speed up the introduction of effective new medicines and devices. Right from the start, we had a problem with the NHS being reluctant to implement its recommendations and, within a few months of it starting, a regulation had to be put through which required it to implement them within 90 days. That has been slightly modified since, but none the less, it is still in being. The NHS has become very adept at finding ways to get round this through the various blocks that have been put in at CCG level—the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, explained clearly the kind of blocks, devices and bureaucratic machinations that are put into place.
The result is that we continue to be very slow to introduce proven new technologies and medicines. NHS patients are very disadvantaged compared to patients in most countries. It then impacts on pharma and the devices industry—I think that pharma is more reluctant now to introduce medicines and develop R&D in this country as a result.
The Minister knows that there is an agreement—it is called VPAS at the moment—whereby NHS expenditure on drugs is capped and industry pays rebates if the cost goes over that cap. Given what I have always thought to be an imaginative agreement and given that industry is essentially underwriting some of those additional costs, surely there must be a better way to approach this which would allow the NHS to implement NICE recommendations enthusiastically, rather than essentially putting into place blocks.
I doubt that we are going to spend two and a half hours on this group of amendments, but these are just as important as the last group, because they go to the heart of whether NHS patients get access to the drugs, devices and technologies that they should. At the moment, they do not. I hope that the Minister might be prepared to take the amendment away. Legislation is the only way that we can see of leveraging the kind of change we need.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 163 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to which I was delighted to add my name.
Perhaps I may remind the Minister of his very first session at the Dispatch Box. He confirmed to your Lordships that the Government had full confidence in the processes at NICE. In a follow-up letter to me he wrote:
“The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is the independent body that develops authoritative, evidence-based guidance for the health and care system to drive best practice. NICE is one of the few organisations with a remit spanning the NHS, public health and social care, meaning it is well placed to provide a system-wide perspective and support Government priorities for the health and care system.”
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 74, to which I have added my name. I was one of the successors to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as a Health Minister responsible for NICE. I pay tribute to his sterling work in establishing it. However, I encountered the same difficulties as he encountered with the NHS speedily taking up NICE recommendations and had to wrestle with this same problem.
I had a long and slightly exhausting chat with the chief executive and the chairman of NICE about what they could do to help the NHS implement their recommendations. We arrived at a concordat, and the NICE people went away and developed a rather helpful system for enabling the NHS to prepare for a NICE recommendation and to implement it. As far as I am aware, looking at the NICE website, it still has that system in place, so it is not as though NICE is simply putting its recommendations in the public arena and leaving the NHS to get on with it; it has done its level best to produce a way of helping the NHS to prepare to implement those recommendations.
What I do not understand is why we have not moved faster over time to recognise that more action needs to be taken with the laggards within the NHS to make this happen. I think that one method is captured in the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
If NICE is so important and it is so important that the NHS implements its recommendations, that ought to figure in the regulator’s assessment of the performance of those NHS bodies. I can see no reason it should not, and I wonder whether the Minister could tell us a little more than I know—and more, I suspect, than the Committee knows—about the current position on the failures of NHS bodies to pursue NICE recommendations. Do the Government accept that the regulator of these bodies should take account of their ability and willingness to implement NICE recommendations? Perhaps the Minister could clarify some of those issues. If he cannot clarify them today, perhaps he could write to us.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak but, animated by the contributions of colleagues who, like me, were there at the conception of NICE, I thought I would offer a couple of contextual remarks to this group of amendments, supporting their underlying motivation, which is to ensure the spread of best practice as fast as possible across the National Health Service.
I was also motivated by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, who spoke earlier about the Crimean War, to recall that this is not a new problem. The world’s first controlled clinical trial took place in 1754 on board HMS “Salisbury”, when the Royal Navy was trying out the use of citric fruit—in lemons and limes—to combat scurvy. That experiment showed that scurvy could be tackled with lime juice, and it took the Navy 41 years to mandate its introduction more widely—fortunately, just in time for the Napoleonic Wars, which is why some argue that, contrary to Winston Churchill’s dictum that it was “rum, sodomy and the lash” that contributed to the Navy’s success, it was in fact lemon and lime juice.
The point is that this is not a new problem. We have been grappling with this but, despite that, we have seen the remarkably quick adoption of new clinical practices over the last two years during Covid, as new randomised control trials, following in the wake of the 1754 example, have shown the benefits of treatments such as dexamethasone. My point of context is that we need to be clear, if this group of amendments is to advance, about the terminology incorporated in the amendments. These will inevitably be, if they find their way into the Act, litigated against in the High Court and Court of Appeal.
In the drafting, there is reference to the marketing authorisations given by NICE, although I think it is the MHRA that provides marketing authorisations. There is a clear distinction to be made between the technology appraisals NICE undertakes and the development of guidelines. Although a number of noble Lords have referenced the importance of the guidelines, it is worth saying that a quick look at the NICE website reveals there are 1,591 guidelines, pieces of advice, quality standards and all the rest of it—most of which have not been subject to the full cost-effectiveness and affordability assessments that the gold standard technology appraisal performs. Before there could be a legal mandate for those guidelines, there would be some very significant methodological considerations for NICE. Without those, the risk is that mandating those guidelines would take resources away from other parts of needed care, such as mental health and community nursing—Cinderella services that have not been subject to those same processes.
We should also recognise that, vital though NICE is, the bigger contribution to the diffusion of best practice will probably be made in other ways. Certainly, reporting could help. Although one amendment makes the perfectly reasonable proposition of an annual report from integrated care boards on their adoption and uptake, that still feels a slightly 20th-century solution. If you go to Oxford University’s superb www.openprescribing.net, you can see your own GP practice and your own CCG’s prescribing patterns against the national norm, including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, for the DOACs, the anticoagulating medicines. Those technologies are already available, and the role that clinical pharmacists are now playing, including the thousands of new clinical pharmacists hired to work alongside GPs to improve their prescribing habits, is also likely to have an important influence.
Finally, there is this question of whether, just occasionally, conflicts of interest might arise on the part of prescribers or clinicians over the medicines or devices being used. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has drawn attention to this in her important work, and that is perhaps something the House might return to at a later date.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I want to intervene at not too much length. I welcome these amendments and am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for bringing hers forward. It enables us to touch on a subject which those of us involved in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act will recognise. This is a short version of the debates we had then, but it gives us an opportunity to update a little on those and me an opportunity to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench a few questions arising from that. We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, who clarified some of the terminology, which saves us going wrong. But I want to do a bit of clarification about some of the amendments as well.
The timing of this is terrific. We are discussing this today and NICE published the outcome of its methods review yesterday, so we can respond immediately. My starting point is to applaud NICE for having taken up and accepted the proposition that there should be a modifier in relation to its appraisals and assessments on severe diseases. We can argue about the precise detail, but it has taken that up.
Secondly, randomised control trials are terribly important but they are not the whole story. NICE has rightly accepted it should look at more real-world evidence and that, too, we can welcome, but it leads me directly to a question. Part of that real-world evidence, and one of the reasons it is not going directly to NICE, though NICE can use it, is the innovative medicines fund. NHS England published its proposal for the innovative medicines fund in July and said that it would consult on it, but it has not done so yet. My first question to my noble friend is therefore: when will NICE and NHS England consult on the innovative medicines fund?
The third point on NICE’s methods review is that it will take account of the wider impacts of the treatments it appraises. That is terribly important, especially given the present opportunities for personalised medicines and gene-based treatments, when one looks at how these can impact substantially on people’s lives from a relatively early stage and the contributions they can make to society and the economy. That is all good news.
The press release from NICE, however, did not draw specific attention to where it had proceeded in a way that its stakeholders did not support. It has maintained a reference-case discount rate of 3.5%, although NICE itself admitted that there was evidence that a lower discount rate would give significant benefits. It said that there would be wider implications for policy and fiscal complexities and interdependencies if it were to do this, which I think means “The Treasury said no”. We need to think very hard about whether a discount rate as high as 3.5% is appropriate for NICE’s application of its appraisals. I ask my noble friend, though he will not be able to give me the answer to this: who is telling NICE that it cannot adopt what it regards as the evidence-based discount rate for the appraisals it undertakes?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, on that basis, I have seen it said elsewhere that NICE has referred to its “national stakeholders.” I can only assume that they are Her Majesty’s Government.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Given NICE’s remit, it might be the Welsh Government as well, but the noble Lord may well be correct. We are all surmising, but I think we are probably not too far off the mark. It gave us an opportunity to respond to that.
So far as the amendments are concerned, the proposition that approved treatments should be adopted by the NHS is a proper one. What, of course, has not been brought into the debate is that the world has moved on, even in recent years. NHS England has taken what I think is an appropriately substantial interest in the approval of treatments, the uptake of treatments and their adoption by the NHS. When it started out, people said, “Oh dear, NICE is going to approve a treatment and then NHS England is going to tell people not to use it because it is going to cost them a lot of money.” In fact, we all agreed in the debates on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill that there was everything to be said for NHS England, NICE and the pharmaceutical industry working together early, proactively, for the planned introduction of new medicines, including taking account of their cost. That is an NHS England role, not a NICE role. NICE does gold standard appraisals, but it does not take responsibility for the fiscal consequences of those appraisals, so all these things need to be put together. The pricing decision should not be something that comes out at the end.
One of the things I have been going on about for a decade or more—actually, 15 years—is that we should not end up in a position where there is an effective medicine that is properly approved by the MHRA and authorised for use; clinicians can use it and they know it is the right thing for their patient; but, because of the absence of an appropriate pricing decision, the answer to the patient is “no”. We should not arrive at that position. With NHS England and NICE working together with the pharmaceutical industry, we stand a better chance of the answer not being “no” in those circumstances as long as the resources are, indeed, available.
I do not think, on the face of it, that we should be legislating to change the medicines mandate from where it is now. My noble friend Lady McIntosh, in introducing her Amendment 54, referred to devices. The amendment does not refer to devices, but it should refer to devices. My further question to my noble friend the Minister is: when are we going to get a proper funding mandate on devices, which I think I was promised during our deliberations on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill but we have not yet formally had it? Some good work has been done on some devices each year, but I am hoping that we will get a proper funding mandate on devices.
On formularies, my noble friend did not actually refer to the British National Formulary. Of course, NICE has had responsibility for the BNF for about seven or eight years, and even if it is not a legislative method, there is everything to be said for the NHS and clinicians looking to the BNF and NICE’s role in the BNF.
My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, were quite right about the adoption of NICE guidance and standards on the use of them in clinical circumstances. However, via the regulator—the CQC—we already have a process by which the CQC looks at quality standards produced by NICE and incorporates what NICE itself isolates as the essential aspects of the standards that, in order to provide safe and effective care, must be reflected in the practice of a health provider.
My question to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is: if she thinks that is not sufficient, how much further should the CQC actually go in adopting quality standards? At the moment, it has compromised and said, “We will take the essential steps, because those are a few, generally about five, specific things that we can look at to see whether they are being done, in which case, okay; or are they not being done, in which case it clearly needs improvement, or may not be meeting the standard.”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
The noble Lord asked me a question to which I feel obliged to try to respond, but I really want to answer the question with a question: does the CQC have enough powers to benchmark as it would want to do, and to publish those benchmarks? I hear the concerns of my noble friend Lord Stevens in relation to fear of litigation and how that is an objection to the amendments, but I am also quite worried that that is potentially a way of avoiding adopting the guidelines themselves, thereby inhibiting a change in practice and a move to best practice.
While there are sources of information that those who are very health-literate, IT-literate, and so on, can access to establish their own benchmarks about what is happening, many people, particularly those in the most deprived areas of the UK, do not have any knowledge of even where to begin looking for these things. That was the motivation behind the amendment: to try to make sure that in the poorest and most deprived areas, people would still be able to access this. That would drive up standards gently but would not create a mandated requirement that a NICE guideline is adopted, for the reasons I outlined previously.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I can see that my noble friend is eager to come in but I will conclude by answering the noble Baroness. I am not an expert, but I think the CQC has the powers—since it presently does it—to take account of the NICE quality standards and to incorporate specific indicators from those quality standards as part of its regulatory review. If the CQC was to attempt to introduce large-scale application of the guidance as a question in a regulatory review, I do not think the issue would be whether it had the power to do it, but whether it would make the headline conclusions it reaches in relation to healthcare providers increasingly difficult to interpret. At the moment, they are relatively straightforward to interpret. There is a small number of specific indicators in relation to services provided and they are either doing them or they are not. With guidance, it becomes much more complicated and many more value judgments have to be applied about the circumstances in which they are or are not complying. So, there is a real difficulty in going far beyond where we are now.
I will listen with great care when my noble friend the Minister responds to the questions I have asked.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments, subject to the economic difficulties. As I listened to the local Baroness, Lady Brinton, I wondered whether the amendments might be strengthened by some reference to the timescale in which they must be implemented. That might have some beneficial effect for many people who are waiting.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome these amendments, which relate to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence—NICE. I thank all noble Lords for tabling these amendments and for their contributions today, which certainly expanded my knowledge of the subject, as I am sure they did across the Committee. The debate has shown that there is a need for change, as I am sure the Minister has heard, to better equip the National Health Service to provide the patient what they need when they need it.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, spoke clearly about hurdles that must be overcome, whether they are bureaucratic, process, budgetary or administrative. All these hurdles get in the way of the end result: meeting the needs of patients. That, I believe, is what this debate is focused on.
NICE is well recognised as a partner to our NHS. Its objective approach and evidence-based analysis rightly gain respect. However, as my noble friend Lord Hunt said—he can now be called the first Minister for NICE—although the National Health Service is full of innovation, it is also slow to pick up on it; that point was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. That begs the question: what kind of partner should NICE be to the NHS? Is it going to be an enabling partner, or will it frustrate at times? Of course, we all want to see NICE in that fully enabling capacity.
However, beyond what NICE approves in terms of treatments, pathways or otherwise, there must be procedures for it to implement and connect effectively to patients’ needs. We know that no system or set of procedures will ever be perfect; we have heard that today. Understandably, therefore, as the Minister has heard, pressure and a will for change—in a positive sense—is contained in these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke about how important it is to have evidence-based healthcare and to have known guidelines and see them complied with, as is right and proper.
There are cautionary considerations to note in this debate; we have heard some of them. One is whether it is wise to put what in some cases appear to be operational requirements in the Bill. I am sure the Minister will address this. The new world is certainly paying a lot of attention to flexibilities. We want to make sure that anything contained in the Bill does not inadvertently work in another direction.
My understanding is that NICE guidance is mandated, in effect, with the guidelines somewhat less so. Amendment 54 contains a proposal to reinforce the intention that, once a treatment has been properly assessed and recommended, all patients should be able to gain the benefit. We know, and we have heard in this debate, that this does not always happen, and that clinical commissioning groups follow different policies. However, in considering the amendment at face value, it is important that we consider what impact this latitude might have. I am sure we are all keen not to accidentally invoke some kind of fallout, such as taking away all leeway from commissioners. At present, they can depart if they can set out an objective case for doing so; for example, with requests for certain drugs and therapies through individual funding requests.
Similarly, it would be unfair if a patient could cross an integrated care board border and receive a treatment that was not available in another ICB area. That would seem inadvertently to achieve what we do not want to achieve: the worst of a postcode lottery. Equally, if we have locally based approaches, the reality is that some localities will differ in their priorities and services. I know that we will return to this topic many times in our consideration of the Bill because the care that patients receive should certainly be equitable and fair and not based on where they live.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, both to the amendments and in making wider points about NICE. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Gillian Leng, who recently stepped down as chief executive of NICE after a number of years.
I turn to Amendment 54. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that we all want NHS patients to benefit from proven and cost-effective treatment; no one would want otherwise. That is why we see NICE as playing a vital role in supporting patient access to new treatments. I have heard the criticisms from previous Health Ministers, who were responsible for NICE. I sometimes feel in debates such as this, when I am with former Health Ministers, that it is like a special edition of “Doctor Who”, with previous regenerations. I hope we do not create a fracture in the space-time continuum. NICE recommends the vast majority of new medicines for use by the NHS. In fact, in 2020-21 100% of new medicines were recommended by NICE and many thousands of NHS patients have benefited from access to some of the most cost-effective treatments as the result of its work.
Another interesting thing is that when a decision is made and it is difficult to access medicines, patients will get frustrated—rightly so, given that they know it is available or maybe has been recommended. At the same time, on the global stage NICE has a well-earned reputation. It is one of my three priorities; I have mentioned technology, the second is life sciences and the third is international health diplomacy—how we use our position on health as part of UK soft power. One of the institutions people across the world look to and want to learn from is NICE. NICE is looking to be at the centre of a number of global networks on the issues where it has a reputation.
NHS England and clinical commissioning groups are already under a statutory obligation, under Regulations 7 and 8 of the snappily titled National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Constitution and Functions) and the Health and Social Care Information Centre (Functions) Regulations 2013, to fund any treatment recommended by NICE through its technology appraisal or highly specialised technologies programmes, usually within three months of guidance being issued. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, mentioned, NICE also operates a separate medical technologies programme, which supports faster and more consistent adoption of medical devices, diagnostics and digital products.
I assure noble Lords that these funding requirements will apply to the ICBs once established. Therefore, we do not see the amendment as necessary at this stage for clinicians to prescribe NICE-recommended treatments for their patients. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for pointing out some of the unintended consequences and scope of such amendments. I remind your Lordships that, since April 2021, NHS England’s medtech funding mandate has supported faster access to some of these innovative technologies recommended by NICE.
I know that I am going to try to reassure noble Lords on a number of things but, on Amendment 74, I hope they note that the funding requirement on ICBs for NICE-recommended treatments goes even further than the requirement to promote what the noble Lords propose in the first part of the amendment. This will ensure that clinicians will continue to be able to prescribe NICE-recommended treatments for their patients.
The second part of the amendment would replicate existing arrangements that are in place to measure uptake and use of NICE-recommended medicines. Since 2013, NHS Digital has published an innovation scorecard that reports uptake of medicines that NICE has recommended in the last five years at a national and local level. Data on the uptake of NICE-recommended medical devices is not currently reported in the innovation scorecard as it has been more complicated to collect. However, I assure noble Lords that work is under way, by both NHS Digital and the Accelerated Access Collaborative, to address this gap. The Government consider that it is more appropriate and proportionate that this information is collected and published by a single national body using an agreed methodology, not by multiple organisations that will each have different ways of measuring and presenting the data.
On Amendment 97, I can tell noble Lords that NICE works closely with the MHRA—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, for pointing out the distinction —which issues marketing authorisations to ensure that licensing and appraisal timescales are aligned wherever possible. The NHS in England usually funds any treatment recommended through NICE’s programmes within three months of positive final guidance. We believe that three months is a realistic framework for providers to prepare for and introduce a new technology, and I hope I can assure the Committee that NICE and NHS England already work closely to facilitate the adoption of recommended technologies as quickly as possible.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, again alluded to, there is a high level of transparency in the operation of local formularies. Formularies have their own public websites, which list the selected medicines and associated guidance, and area prescribing committees publish the minutes of meetings, which identify the medicines added or removed from formularies. We believe that there is therefore no need to publish an annual list.
Although healthcare providers are encouraged to use local formularies when prescribing, they are not restricted to them. The decision as to what to prescribe lies with the prescriber, who will act in the best interests of the patient. Indeed, some of the correspondence I get as a Minister for Health often refers to when people cannot get access to a medicine that is not recommended, but the clinician has the authority to suggest that that medicine can be available to the local area.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am sure the Minister is right about how this system is meant to work, but there are far too many examples of clinicians seeking to prescribe medicines that have gone through the technology appraisal and then finding that CCGs have set up the various devices that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned to delay or stop it. Does he recognise that CCGs are engaged in a process of seeking to delay implementation for as long as possible? Will this be accepted under ICBs or will it be tackled?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising this issue. I should be honest; I was not aware of the suggestion that CCGs often delay and whether that situation will be transferred to ICBs. I ask noble Lords whether I can look into that situation further to understand it more. I simply say that I was not under that impression.
Lord Warner (CB)
When the Minister is looking into that, will he also look at the issue of the usual suspects? The problem that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, probably encountered—I certainly encountered it—was that many of these areas that are slow to implement NICE recommendations are the same areas where overall performance is pretty poor. There is an issue here about whether we can clearly identify the laggards and take action with them, rather than have a generalised look at the performance of particular areas.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Perhaps I may suggest, following the interventions of both noble Lords and their experience of being Health Ministers and of NICE, arranging a follow-up meeting with them to discuss this matter in more detail so that I can understand the situation more. As I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, I have been in this job for only four months and am still learning an awful lot. In fact, I am learning far more in this Committee than I have in my first four months. That shows that sometimes there is no substitute for learning on the job.
NICE has a suite of more than 300 guidelines and, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said, more than about 1,900 medicines, spanning the whole of health and social care. It makes dozens of recommendations that can be complicated. We do not think it proportionate or feasible to require compliance with NICE guidelines but, given what I have just mentioned, I should like to consult previous Health Ministers with experience in this area and perhaps have further discussions to see what is relevant in the future.
I shall end with the CQC reviews of ICSs. We will look more broadly at the entire system of how the ICS areas are performing. A requirement for the CQC to specifically consider compliance with NICE guidelines as part of these reviews risks adding a considerable burden to this process. I can, however, assure the Committee that the Government expect the healthcare system to take NICE’s recommendations fully into account, subject to what noble Lords have told me about the performance of some CCGs. I am also aware that NICE works closely with system partners to support implementation where possible. It is probably best henceforth for me to have those conversations with the two noble Lords and any others with experience of this matter. There are more than two former Health Ministers in this House and we should have those conversations.
Let me see if I can answer some of the specific questions. As regards VPS—how do I put this in the most diplomatic way?—I have been asked to look at that issue. The industry has complained, for example, because we also have therapeutic tendering at the same time as expecting this. I am grateful to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for asking me to look into this issue in further detail. I have asked what would happen, for example, when some of the life sciences companies ask whether it makes the UK less attractive in some ways. I am assured that it does not but I am looking into this issue as part of the life sciences aspect of my portfolio.
I think that I have covered all the questions but all that I ask at the moment is to let me have further conversations. That is probably best. In that spirit, I ask noble Lords to consider withdrawing or not moving their amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have contributed to this debate and for the number of issues that have been raised.
At the outset, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, highlighted and a number of us focused on the hurdles—as the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, described them—to be overcome. However, there has been a lot of focus on the problems of the budgetary challenge. It would be incumbent on my noble friend the Minister to meet not just with the two noble Lords he highlighted but the drafters of the amendments: myself, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Warner, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who sat so patiently through the whole of today’s proceedings and had to leave before this discussion was reached. As he had such success in the mental health meeting, I hope that we replicate that and take up a number of the issues raised here.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, to move Amendment 56A—or the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. Is the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, moving Amendment 56A?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I might put in a slight plea to the Committee on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Low. He has sat patiently through this debate for a long time. He was expecting that the other amendment would be moved and, on realising that it was not, has made every attempt to return to his place as fast as possible.
Amendment 56A
Lord Low of Dalston
“116C Primary ophthalmic services for people with learning disabilitiesNHS England must make arrangements for the assessment of the need for primary ophthalmic services by people with learning disabilities, including access to sight tests, and ensure primary ophthalmic services are commissioned to meet those needs.”Member’s explanatory statement
Under Schedule 3 of the Bill, NHS England retains its powers to make arrangements for the provision of primary ophthalmic services itself or direct Integrated Care Boards for such provision. This seeks to improve eye care for people with learning disabilities.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
Right on cue, my Lords, I am rising to move Amendment 56A, which seeks to improve eye care for people with learning difficulties, as they are much more likely to have a sight problem but much less likely to access primary ophthalmic services, including access to NHS sight tests. The Bill offers an opportunity to seek improvements to an often-overlooked area of primary care: namely, primary eye care or ophthalmic care. Schedule 3 to the Bill contains amendments to the National Health Service Act 2006, regarding primary ophthalmic services: that is to say, commissioning of NHS sight tests and more.
Primary eye care is vital for the health of the nation. We know that half of sight loss could be prevented but is not because people do not go for sight tests as frequently and regularly as they need to. Many people are living with sights problems that could be picked up and treated quickly if people were going for regular sight tests. We also know that our hospital eye clinics are overwhelmed and are one of the busiest outpatient specialities. There were delays to treatment prior to the pandemic, but now these have been greatly exacerbated as a result of the pandemic. Work is under way to look at how primary eye care can add capacity to the system through an NHS England eye care transformation programme. Just like their colleagues in general practice, dentistry and pharmacy, there are optometrists and dispensing opticians working in primary care who have the clinical training to provide early and ongoing support to patients but do not have the chance.
Supporting primary eyecare makes sense in very many ways. However, we know that, as with other areas of healthcare, there are inequalities in primary eyecare. Some parts of the population are not accessing regular sight tests, even if they might be eligible to have them free under the NHS. In 2018, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Eye Health and Visual Impairment explored this issue, particularly for people with learning disabilities and people who are homeless. This work was supported by the APPG on learning disabilities. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, supports this amendment, but she has not been able to stay to join in the debate.
The APPGs on eye health and visual impairment and on learning disabilities took evidence from the charity SeeAbility. People with learning disabilities are much more likely to have a sight problem but much less likely to access NHS sight tests. Vision problems in people with severe learning disabilities are so high that researchers have said that this population should be considered visually impaired unless proven otherwise. SeeAbility’s work in special schools found that more than four in 10 children had never had a sight test. In other studies, it was found that half of adults with learning disabilities had not had a sight test in all the recommended period. SeeAbility found that many children were attending hospital eye clinics for routine eye tests.
A recommendation that the APPGs made in 2018 that there should be a sight-testing and glasses-dispensing service in all special schools is now being taken forward by NHS England, which is excellent news. It will reach around 130,000 children and help address and prevent avoidable sight loss, as well as reducing the need to use hospital eye clinics. Once the proof of concept phase is completed in 2023, it is understood that a new special schools scheme will need to be legislated for to provide for an additional service to be added to the National Health Service ophthalmic services contract through an amendment to regulations. It is hoped that at the appropriate time the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will ensure that the special schools eyecare service has the legislative authority that it needs. The commitment by NHS England to this service is commendable, and it must continue with that commitment as these children deserve an equal right to sight. This is something we will all want to follow closely.
However, the APPGs went further in 2018 and also recommended that there is a continuing need to improve eyecare outside special schools for people with learning disabilities. There are an estimated 1 million people with learning disabilities in England. The APPGs noted that the tariff for primary eyecare acts as a disincentive to carry out sight tests within optical practices when seeing adults or children with more severe or profound learning disabilities, despite this group being at most risk of having a sight problem. This compares poorly with other areas of primary care, such as the GP annual health check for people with learning disabilities, or special needs dentistry. The local optical committee support unit’s learning disability eyecare pathway, which is endorsed by SeeAbility and Mencap, can be commissioned by clinical commissioning groups to provide more targeted, longer and adjusted optical appointments for people with moderate to severe learning disabilities. However, it has been commissioned in only a few areas in England and it really needs to be countrywide.
Eligibility for NHS sight tests under secondary legislation has also missed out people with learning disabilities from the exclusive list of eligible groups—that is, children, older adults, people in receipt of certain means-tested benefits and high-risk groups such as those with a family history of glaucoma or diabetes. This places the burden on the person with a learning disability to work out whether they are eligible in other ways. For that reason, no data is collected on how many people with learning disabilities access NHS sight tests in the community. For the purposes of this debate, this is a straightforward amendment that bolsters NHS England’s existing commitment to the special school eye care service across England’s special schools. It reminds us that all people with learning disabilities are in need of particular attention when it comes to eye care.
Schedule 3 to the Bill amends the section on primary ophthalmic services in the National Health Service Act 2006 by introducing general powers to make arrangements, in Section 116A, and to publish general information, in Section 116B. The amendment would supplement that with a new Section 116C, which would simply oblige NHS England to make an assessment of the needs of those with learning disabilities for primary ophthalmic services, including access to NHS sight tests, and ensure that services were commissioned to meet those needs.
The amendment’s national focus is needed because the local discretionary approach to introducing the aforementioned LOCSU learning disability eye care pathway by clinical commissioning groups has not worked. It exists in only six areas of the country when it really needs to be available across the country as a whole. The amendment would allow for the possibility of extending eligibility for NHS sight tests to all people with learning disabilities once the evidence was reviewed.
The Bill clearly envisages that the Secretary of State and NHS England can work together and both can exercise powers to improve primary ophthalmic services, with NHS England having a clear national oversight role. The amendment is supported by three existing NHS England objectives into the bargain: first, the programme of work to address the health inequalities of people with learning disabilities; secondly, the programme of work to improve community eye care and reduce the unnecessary use of hospital eye clinics; and, thirdly, the commendable work in primary optometry of the special school eye care service.
There may be those who would say that no population needs to be explicitly prescribed for in primary legislation and that matters can be left to the discretion of secondary legislation and directives. However, the health inequalities experienced by people with learning disabilities justify putting them in the Bill. People are dying of avoidable health issues at least two decades before their peers. We cannot have a situation where people are living without good sight and even going avoidably blind because NHS services overlook their needs. I beg to move.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 112 and 17 others that are in my name. I am very grateful to the three noble Lords who have added their names to these amendments. These are terribly straightforward; it is the same point in a number of different contexts. As we put it in the explanatory statement, the amendments
“would require Integrated Care Boards to work with the four primary care services … when preparing and revising their five year plans, in the same way they are required to work with NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts.”
It is a very simple, straightforward point and a matter of proportion. It is appropriate to give a similar level of influence and respect to primary care as we give to acute services.
I will mention that there are some practical difficulties —obviously, there are many more primary care services than NHS trusts—and come back to that at the end. If it is not obvious enough that we should do this, I want to pull out three points about why this is so important; I expect that others will mention other points. I am talking here about GP surgeries, as opposed to the other three services, although I totally endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Low just said about ophthalmology services.
First, if it is true, as Members across this Committee have argued for however many sessions it has been, that a large part of the future is community-based, then alongside public-health figures and their clinical work, it is primary care—nurses and others, not just doctors—who will be the essential guides and specialists to help all those place-based, arts, non-clinical and inequalities-busting activities that we have talked about for a considerable part of this debate. They have that key role.
Secondly, I was dismayed by the way the Government criticised GPs recently. Primary care is under enormous pressure and I do not understand why the Government chose to do that. A large part of the problem is that there are simply not enough primary care specialists of all kinds, including GPs, and I do not think any progress has been made towards the promised 5,000 extra GPs. Primary care is under enormous pressure throughout the country and, while I greatly welcome the focus in the Bill and in government policy on waiting lists, I believe that it will be here in primary care that we will see the real battle for the future of the NHS. It is really important that we give those who are doing so much in our services the respect, influence and prominence that they deserve.
My third and perhaps, in some ways, biggest point is that primary care is changing very fast in all kinds of ways; it is an area where there is enormous innovation. As the Royal College of GPs itself says about the role of the GP, there is a place for one-off consultations—a place for the GP on the railway station, or wherever, where you can have a very quick consultation—but there is an even bigger place for the sort of continuing role based on the relationships between a GP and their patient that we are familiar with traditionally and which I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, described so well in describing her father as knowing his patients “inside and out”. That relationship, however, is not just with individual patients; it is a relationship with the community. Many GPs have taken that role, but more are taking on the role of a relationship with their community.
Some GPs are rewriting this role so that it is more of a public health role in some ways. There is Sir Sam Everington at Bromley by Bow, whom the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, mentioned in his great, eloquent speech on our last occasion in Committee, and others such as Dr Gillian Orrow, who is bringing together groups in the community and leading Growing Health Together in Horley. Others are taking on wider roles, such as Dr Laura Marshall-Andrews in Brighton. People are thinking about their role in a very different and important way and I apologise for giving three southern examples—they happen to be ones I know very well, but I know that this sort of innovation is going on around the country. More generally, of course, we can think about social prescribing and the way that that is changing primary care.
Here is the really big point: these doctors, nurses and others in primary care are acting as clinicians, of course, but they are also agents of change. They are the animateurs, the facilitators enabling local health-creating activity. For that reason, we need to have people like them fully engaged in the planning and all the mechanisms of the new NHS structures so that they can have the influence needed for the future.
I come back to the practical note I made at the beginning. Of course it will be difficult to engage primary care appropriately in every way and there might not be the same structure and arrangements in every part of the country, but it is really important that we get these primary care inputs into the five-year plans, their monitoring, planning and discussion so that they can really influence what will happen in the future. I understand that the Royal College of GPs is in discussion with the Department of Health. I urge the Minister to encourage his officials to find a way to make this obvious thing, which needs doing, work. It is vital that we do not disfranchise a key and currently quite largely demoralised sector or, as importantly, lose their valuable contribution.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendments 117 and 218 in this group. I have also put my name to the series of amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, but I start by endorsing what the noble Lord, Lord Low, had to say. I hope the Government will come back sympathetically in relation to that.
My Amendment 117 would ensure that primary care professions would have mandated roles within integrated care partnerships, with members appointed by each of the four practitioner committees: the local medical, dental, pharmaceutical and optical committees. Secondly —and this is very consistent with the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp—this would ensure that, in preparing their annual strategic forward plan, the integrated care board and its partner trusts and NHS foundation trusts would need to consult the relevant primary care local representative committees and publish an explanation of how they took account of those views when publishing their plan.
I have the same arguments as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and I will not repeat them because he put them so well. History has shown that, even when clinical commissioning groups were nominally under the control of GPs, they often found it very difficult to get the rest of the system to listen to their issues and concerns. I agree with the noble Lord that there is now so much pressure on primary care that there is a great risk that they will be ignored in the work of the ICBs in particular. That would be a great pity. It is not just GPs, but the other parts of the primary care world. The noble Lord, Lord Low, already referred to ophthalmologists and opticians, but there is also this conundrum about the ability of pharmacists to take some of the load off the system but there is also often the inability of the local NHS to talk to them and embrace them sufficiently.
I hope the Minister will be sympathetic. If he says that he is not willing to tell ICBs that they must embrace representatives of the local committees then there is now a clear conflict. He is saying that it is up to the local ICBs to decide, but it has become abundantly clear that NHS England is giving out very heavy-handed guidance about who should be on ICBs. I would make this point to him: you cannot have it both ways. Either you leave it up to ICBs and withdraw this guidance, or Parliament has a role and a right to determine the governance arrangements. The action of NHS England in being so heavy-handed, such as saying that local councillors cannot serve on ICBs, means that the argument he put forward really does not stand up any more.
I move to my Amendment 218. On this one I must remind the House of my membership of the board of the GMC. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, talked about the crisis in workforce issues generally, which I am not sure we are going to get on to today now. In relation to GPs, it is very apparent that not only do we have a chronic shortage but there is a grossly inadequate distribution of GPs throughout the country. Recent data, published by NHS England in November, shows that the primary care network covering an area in Gloucestershire described as 4PCC and comprising Cadbury Heath, Close Farm, Hanham and Kingswood had an average list of 1,138 patients per full-time equivalent GP. There are some others with similar figures. At the other end of the scale, Shore Medical primary care network in Dorset had an average list of 7,317 patients per full-time equivalent GP. York Priory Medical Group PCN had an average list of 7,154 patients per full-time GP and the Marsh Group PCN in Kent had an average list of 7,040 per full-time equivalent GP. These are huge disparities and there are many other areas that have average lists of under 1,600 and plenty with averages of more than 6,000.
The situation is really reminiscent of the situation before the start of the NHS. That is why in 1948 the Medical Practice Committee for England and Wales started work. It was charged with ensuring equitable distribution and, to a large extent, I believe it achieved its objectives. It was abolished in 2001 and I had better confess to the House that, I am afraid, I took through the legislation abolishing it. However, we were at the start of a massive expansion in the workforce at that time and felt that at that point the kind of bureaucratic way in which the MPC worked probably was no long fit for purpose.
We have a real problem here and confirmation of the dire situation was provided recently in research by the University of Cambridge’s department of primary care. A team including Dr Rebecca Fisher found that the significant GP workforce inequalities I have talked about are increasing and that workforce shortages disproportionately affect deprived areas. If you look at the situation in deprived areas, practices often have lower CQC scores, lower quality and outcome framework performances and lower patient satisfaction scores. Patients in those areas often have shorter GP consultations despite the fact that they have more complex health needs.
General practice is paid according to how many patients they have, with an adjustment made for the workload associated with those patients. Since 2004, the global sum allocation formula, known as the Carr-Hill formula, has been used to make that adjustment. However, Fisher argues that the consultation length is a flawed proxy for need and that the formula has long been widely acknowledged to be incapable of accurately weighing needs associated with socioeconomic deprivation. In 2020, after accounting for need, practices serving deprived areas received about 7% less funding per patient than those in non-deprived areas.
There is also the targeted enhanced recruitment scheme. This offers trainee GPs a one-off payment of £20,000 when joining a practice in an area that had long-standing difficulty in getting more doctors. However, this has not made a significant difference and clearly is not the answer to this enormous problem.
In the amendment—and I am very glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and the noble Baroness—I have proposed the creation of
“the General Medical Practitioners Equitable Distribution Board”
as a first step. I envisage the board being invested with discretionary powers of negative direction, as was the MPC. It would consider applications from primary care networks, and they would be expected only from adequately doctored, or more than adequately doctored, PCNs. It would be a way of intervening in the market and making it more difficult to appoint GPs in those areas that are already very well supplied with doctors.
I accept that this is not the only approach, but it is an approach that has worked in the past. Frankly, I do not think that we can carry on without some major intervention to try to spread the load, because it is clear that all the odds are stacked against you if you are in an area of high deprivation where there are many more patients per GP. You get burnout among the professions and things become very difficult indeed. It looks as though financial incentives are not the answer. Clearly, we need to get more GPs into those areas to lessen the load, and then improve the quality and outcomes. I hope the Minister will be prepared to take this back and give it some consideration.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I hesitate to rise. I had not originally intended to participate in this debate, but I feel obliged to speak and make some general points in support of the noble Lord, Lord Low, and his powerful and compelling arguments for his amendments. I declare an interest: the House will be well aware that my son, who is 43 years old, has a learning disability and is autistic, so I have some experience of the arguments spoken about by the noble Lord. I have also been a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Disability for more than a decade, and I know of the fantastic work that SeeAbility has undertaken for its membership for many years.
I want to say something, because this group of adults has suffered dreadfully over the past two years, particularly during lockdown. They do not have the privilege of being at school or in early college education and being looked after by the system. I hope the Minister and the whole NHS system will agree with the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Low, including the suggestion that these services should be available. I assume that making ophthalmic services available in schools and colleges is one of the easiest things to achieve. However, it is not so for adults with a learning disability and autism who have just left school and are at that age when nobody cares about them anymore. That is where the problem occurs.
I had enormous difficulties. I do not want to speak about myself in any way, because I am more than able to argue my case, find out where services are by ringing people and looking at services on the internet, and challenge when I face difficulty. I challenge more now than I was when my son was younger. I am also well attuned. I speak regularly with organisations on the ground that work with the parents and carers of people with learning disabilities and autism, so I know fully how much they struggle to ascertain and obtain information about ophthalmic care.
I want quickly to share the experience I had with my adult son. All his appointments were cancelled for nearly a year. I could see that his eyesight really suffered. He was not able to co-ordinate his way even around his own home where he is very comfortable. I had to push them hard. It was suggested that I should speak to the nearest ophthalmologist and look for these services. I admire all these services, which are trying hard to work with the NHS in the absence of patients being able to go to hospital for ordinary services, but they are not equipped or trained. They do not have the necessary equipment to produce the best results or give effective services to the people who need them. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, it is grossly unfair when there is sight and all someone’s eyes need are a little attention to make a fundamental difference and enrich their life. It is really important that the Government take the noble Lord’s amendments on board with the same passion that he argued with. I hope they also understand the passion of the millions of parents, carers and service users who stand behind him.
I thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for their leniency over this interruption.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I have attached my name to a whole raft of amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Hunt. I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, who has explained powerfully and passionately why primary care in one area is so important to the health and well-being of people. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, for introducing this suite of amendments with such a graphic and powerful explanation of why primary care, particularly for people with learning disabilities, is also important in relation to ophthalmology.
I wanted to put my name to these amendments, because they go right to heart of the purpose of the Bill. Let us be clear about the purpose of the Bill. Its purpose is to integrate healthcare to improve health outcomes and to reduce health inequality. You cannot do that if your focus is purely on the acute sector. The acute sector is the repair system. It is not the part of the system that can really deal with the prevention and innovation that keeps people out of hospital. I am sure that was never the intention of the drafters of the Bill, and I am sure that it is not the Government’s intention. However, the way the Bill is written, the power emphasis is with the acute sector in monitoring, reviewing and strategic plans.
I am sure the Minister will say that that is not the case, but the way the Bill is written it is the acute sector that will have the power over who sits in the ICB and whose plans they are. So I say to the Minister in a very friendly way that the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Hunt, and I have been involved in the management and leadership of health in different parts of the system. I was involved in acute and primary care myself. When I came into the health service, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, was so powerful and mighty that he was the chief executive of NHS England. It was the same with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I feel in very esteemed and very grand company.
However, the point we are trying to make is that the real way in which healthcare works and how it is developed is that the acute sector is very powerful, even at place. If you do not give a voice and power to primary care, you will not have the innovation and the change that you require. These amendments are a way of trying to make sure that the purpose of the Bill at least moves faster and is eased by having that primary care voice right at the heart of the ICB, and, being statutorily in the Bill and having been there right at the beginning in the planning, monitoring and evaluating, being able to determine what is happening. That is what these amendments are about, nothing more. They are not amendments that should be deemed difficult or trying to slow things down. They are genuinely helpful amendments.
I say very gently but powerfully to the Minister that he really needs to incorporate these amendments. If he cannot incorporate and accept them now, the Government need to come back with a set of amendments that really crystalise the role of some great primary care people, whether they are in GP surgeries, ophthalmology, pharmacy or dental, who can actually help with the purpose of this Bill, which is to improve health outcomes, integrate healthcare and reduce inequalities. It is vital.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 218, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to which I have added my name. Before I get down to that, perhaps I could make a few remarks about the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the other remarks that have been made.
When I was sitting in Richmond House as a Minister, we had a description for the chief executives of the acute trusts. They were called “the barons”. When the House of Lords Select Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, took evidence on the long-term sustainability of the NHS and adult social care, three or four of them—I cannot remember exactly how many—came in to give evidence. Their opening salvo was, “We need 4% a year real-terms increase every year, stretching into the future”. I suspect that culture has not changed that much since I was around in Richmond House, and it has to be changed—forcibly if necessary—if we are actually to deliver the sustainability of the NHS.
Since 1948, the acute hospitals have been magnificent in laying down the law about how much money they need. Even when money was short, they were pretty good at it. My personal experience as a Minister was that, if I wanted the go-to people on change, I would go to the GPs. They were much more flexible and willing to have a go at doing things differently. We need to bear some of that in mind.
About 90% of people’s encounters with the NHS are with primary care, not with acute hospitals. People’s vision of the NHS is those encounters. I just want to mention an encounter my wife and I had over vaccinations which illustrates some of this. Our very efficient, local general practice was fast out of the starting blocks and we had two jabs very quickly. Some months later, we were both individually approached by two NHS acute trusts, which shall remain nameless. They asked us when we were going to get round to having our vaccinations. There was absolutely no contact between these two parts of the NHS. One part had no idea that another had dealt with the patients perfectly satisfactorily. This is what we are up against. The least we can do is accept the amendments suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp.
I turn to Amendment 218. I will not repeat the arguments set out by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The numbers speak for themselves. In any service that claims to be national, it cannot be right to have such a wide range in the per capita workloads of GPs. After all, these doctors are the gatekeepers of patient access to specialist diagnosis and treatment. They should not be required to handle case loads that vary from around 1,000 to more than 6,000 patients. Such variations are likely to create significant variations in patient treatment outcomes.
I will make two further brief points in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. First, there have been many worthy amendments tabled about the long-standing, serious problem of health inequalities. Many places with the most serious health inequalities are places where the patient load of GPs is very high. So the patients with the most need of clinical attention and help have the doctors with the least time for individual attention. I have to say, that is a brilliant piece of public policy that we have managed to develop.
My second point relates to the Government’s worthy aspiration to level up the quality of life in many neglected areas of this country. We now have a Secretary of State for Levelling Up, and no doubt we eagerly await the game plan he has for living up to his title. A fairer share of the national supply of GPs would be a tangible piece of levelling up in many of those deprived areas. Can the Minister say whether the Government have considered a move in the direction of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as a useful part of their levelling-up strategy? I hope the Government will give that consideration on those grounds alone.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I have some brief points to add in support of my noble friend Lord Low’s Amendment 56A, which the noble Lord set out so clearly, and also in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. It is very clear to me that primary eyecare has lagged well behind other areas of primary care in terms of any commissioned schemes for children and young people who are not in special schools and for adults with learning disabilities.
My experience with my son sound very similar to those described so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. The similarities are quite extraordinary, and my heart goes out to her. This week my son went to see the optician. He is visually impaired; he has a learning disability and autism. Fortunately for him, the optician responded well to the request for some reasonable adjustments to be made—which are required by law, but perhaps not well understood in local high street opticians.
Some years ago I did some research with SeeAbility, and together we created a visual, word-free resource. I declare an interest here, because this was with the charity I founded and chair: Books Beyond Words. We created a story called Looking After My Eyes and I read this with my son before he went to his optician’s appointment yesterday. It helped him and it helped the optician. But we need targeted improvements in optical care for everybody with a learning disability across the country. For this reason, I thoroughly support my noble friend’s amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in the wake of such a hugely powerful group of contributions, mine is very much a supporting role and I will be brief. I can only endorse the contributions to the amendment put by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and what we have heard about why it is so urgent. I will speak to Amendments 112 and 218, to which I have attached my name.
I attached my name to Amendment 112 because, as I was looking through the amendments, it struck me as such a crucial one. It was one that, even at this stage, it was really important to have four signatures on to show broad cross-party support. I am afraid I did not go for Amendment 113 and the rest of the list as well, on the grounds that I thought my name was there enough already, but I think the rest are—if not technically, certainly practically—consequential on Amendment 112.
After I had done that, I received a briefing from the Royal College of General Practitioners, writing also on behalf of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the Association of Optometrists. I will quote one sentence. The college says:
“We think this is a classic example of where secondary care is at the centre of decision-making, while GPs and primary care are ‘consulted’.”
I think that reflects what the noble Lord, who has a great deal of expertise, said, and this is one amendment that is a total no-brainer.
Moving to Amendment 218, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, outlined the technical background to this and the statistics. The only thing I will add is that many think tanks, including the Health Foundation, the King’s Fund and the Nuffield Trust have produced information about how extreme the variation in availability of GP services is and how much effect that has on inequality. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, if the Government have a levelling-up agenda, this also is surely essential.
The reason I was personally attracted to this amendment is that in my days as Green Party leader I travelled around the country a lot and quite often ended up meeting GPs, very often talking about public health issues. I encountered so many desperately hard-working, utterly committed people who were exhausted and felt that they could not retire or cut back their hours. They were wearing themselves to the bone because no one was coming to replace them. I felt that I needed to stand up and speak for those people.
Sometimes people think of this as something that affects rural or remote areas. However, the Norfolk Park health centre in Sheffield nearly closed last year because, after extraordinary efforts, it had been unable to find an extra partner to come in. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, knows, this surgery is a fairly modest bus ride from the centre of a major city. It is a purpose-built health centre and only eight years old, but it could not find a GP partner to come in. Eventually, after a great deal of public campaigning, the surgery remained open. That is a demonstration of just how broad this problem is, yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, there are parts of the country—broadly the wealthier parts—that have expansive GP coverage.
Something has to be done, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I am not sure that the proposal here is exactly the right way forward. We often say that something needs to be done, but we really need to see something done here. As with so many of the amendments that we discussed this morning, the Bill we have before us is the chance to sort out an urgent problem that must be sorted out.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
I would like to say a few words and will start by complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on all his amendments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that these are not contentious. In fact, I do not think it would harm the Government at all to include these amendments in the Bill. They are trying to reinstate the primacy of primary care.
We all know that the glamour is not in primary care but hospitals—you have only to see where politicians like to be photographed; when they produce newsletters, they are always pictured in a hospital with a very sophisticated piece of new machinery that that hospital has bought. It is understandable, because that is so easy to recognise. With a photograph of a GP in a consulting room, you do not know quite where this is, who it is, or what he is doing. One can understand why the media goes for the picture of the hospital, because that is what people recognise.
In this debate and these amendments, we know that the absolute foundation of the NHS is primary care. It is so important and we have to build its primacy. I am a child of primary care; I grew up in it. My father joined the NHS in 1948. He welcomed it and thought it was a marvellous innovation. I had a very happy childhood as Dr Camm’s daughter; I had status in the community. Then I segued into being Mrs Cumberlege and my status plummeted—because I had married a farmer. We celebrated our wedding 61 years ago last week, so have had a diamond wedding. My husband said to me, “Julia, what do you want?”, and I said, “Well, it is a diamond wedding”. He delivered, and I was just delighted.
I will not extol the virtues of my father’s practice, but want to think of the role of the GP in the future and how it has already changed. In our practice, all the GPs are now part-time. They are men and women, and they have other lives to lead. None of them is a full-time GP, and that makes continuity of care quite difficult, because you are never quite sure whether they will be there or not. If you want an urgent appointment, of course you can get one, but it will probably not be with your GP. So that has changed.
There has been another change. My father built a health centre. In fact, it was the county council that built it, but he put all the pressure on to build it, and it was called the “health centre”. Today, it is not called that; it is called the “medical centre”. That is because the doctors are transactional. They just do what is in front of them. Health is not part of their remit, and it is our community that provides the health. It is the church which has the social work and provides a huge amount of the social services for our community. So things really have changed.
A very good paper was produced by the Royal College of General Practitioners, in June of last year, The Power of Relationships: What Is Relationship-based Care and Why Is It Important? It is such a good paper, and I recommend that noble Lords look at it before we have the debate led by noble friend Lady Hodgson on relation- ship care and what it means. The statistics show that people live longer with relationship care. They are happier. We have some really good evidence, but I shall talk about that when we come to that amendment.
I have been working with Sir Cyril Chantler, whom many people in this House will know. We have been talking about community hubs. We think they are a very good way of moving forward and getting together not only doctors but social care, voluntary organisations and all the community facilities to ensure that they are in a hub. We know that, with integrated services and boards and the work that is going on in integrated care, the populations are enormous. We have to break it down a bit to make it more accessible to people. The next time we have a chance to debate this matter, which will be in the context of relationship care, I shall talk about community hubs with populations of about half a million. We are already establishing maternity hubs. I have said to them, “No, not maternity hubs—you’ve got to make them community hubs; you’ve got to bring in all the other resources that are in the community, because they’ve all got something to offer, and we would all benefit.”
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will think seriously and work with his colleagues to try to ensure that these amendments, or very similar ones, are introduced into the Bill, because we need to ensure the primacy of primary care. I am afraid that it is not there now; it is all about hospitals.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and I am delighted that her status has now gone up again because of her ennoblement and all the excellent work that she has done. We really benefit from her knowledge and wisdom in your Lordships’ House.
I support the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Crisp, and want to make just one point. Correct me if I am wrong or if I am out of date—I am sure that some noble Lord will if I am—but I think it is the situation that if an acute hospital overspends, the NHS bails it out, whereas social care and primary care cannot overspend because nobody will bail them out. I think that says it all.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, in many ways we are drifting back to 1946, when the NHS started on three legs: hospitals, services such as health visitors and ambulances provided by local authorities, and services that were contracted out, such as GPs, dentistry, ophthalmology, pharmacy and so.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this debate for once again increasing my understanding of some of the challenges within the system, in addition to briefings I have had thus far. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his patience and his just-in-time mode of operation and, more than that, for his contribution to the debate today. We appreciate that people with learning disabilities experience a higher prevalence of visual impairment than the general population, and that this prevalence increases with the severity of the learning disability. Children with learning disabilities are, for example, 28 times more likely to have a serious sight problem, and over 40% require glasses.
NHS England continues to responsible for the contracting of the NHS sight testing service. This will eventually be transferred to ICBs. Sight tests are widely available across the country through our very dedicated primary ophthalmic services workforce. Those eligible for a free NHS sight test include children, those on income-related benefits and those at particular risk of eye disease. We expect that those with severe learning disabilities should meet the eligibility criteria in other ways, and for these reasons we do not believe that, at this moment, extending eligibility further is necessary. Where those with learning difficulties are unable to access NHS sight tests on the high street, hospital eye departments also provide routine eyecare services and ongoing care. Children are usually referred on to hospital eye services via visual assessments delivered by specialists in special schools. Others are referred by GPs, school nurses or high street practices. We have also seen the development of special pathways in some parts of the country that cater specifically for adults with learning disabilities and we want to make sure that, via the NHS England central team, we share best practice on a national level, so that all regional teams and all ICBs can benefit from learning from the local initiatives and pilots.
NHS England also tells me that it recognises that more needs to be done to ensure equality of access. That is why the NHS long-term plan committed to ensuring that children and young people with learning disabilities, autism or both in special residential schools have access to eyesight, hearing and dental checks. In order to fulfil this commitment, there is a proof of concept programme building on the work by SeeAbility in London, which was launched in 2021, to provide sight tests and dispense glasses on school premises. My honourable friend the Minister for Care is due to make a visit to one of the schemes.
I now turn to the amendments on primary care providers. I understand noble Lords’ interest and that it has been widely acknowledged that CCGs, for example, are dominated by trusts, particularly for acute care. I take the gentle encouragement of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, to understand that more, and particularly to make sure that the voice of primary care providers is heard. That is also the Government’s ambition. We support the idea that primary care should be integral to ICB planning, which is why at the moment at least one member of the ICB will be nominated by primary care providers in the area.
We all know that primary care service providers are predominantly independent entities that hold contracts with the NHS, unlike NHS trusts and foundation trusts, which are largely statutory entities. If all types of primary care service providers were named in the Bill, it would mean that every provider in the area of the ICB would have a duty to contribute to the development of the joint forward plan. We do not believe it would be a feasible option for all primary care providers to contribute to the plans, but I acknowledge the points made by noble Lords about how we can raise the profile and contribution of primary care providers.
I turn briefly to Amendment 117. We agree that it is important to consult the relevant primary care local representative committees, which is why we already have a provision under new Section 14Z52 to introduce a duty to consult anyone the ICB and its partner trusts consider appropriate when preparing the plan. There should also be a summary of the views expressed by anyone consulted and an explanation of how those views were taken into account. We expect members of the primary care sector to be consulted and their views summarised in this way. We understand that NHS guidance will provide for that.
We also want to allow ICBs to focus on arranging safe, high-quality care, and making an additional, explicit requirement in the Bill does not align with our desire to reduce the bureaucratic burden on ICBs. I understand that this is all part of the general debate about whether, if we accepted every amendment about who should be on the ICB, it would be more inflexible and unwieldy. These are conversations we should have in the round about the priorities for ICBs, what should be mandated, what should be in guidance and what the ICB’s duties are expected to be. I hope that we will have those conversations in the round so that we can come to some sort of consensus across the Committee.
Lord Crisp (CB)
The amendment in my name specifically requires ICBs
“to work with the four primary care services … when preparing and revising their five year plans”.
It does not specifically ask for a seat on the ICB. That is a different request. I hope the Minister understand that and will respond to it.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification and also for the advice he has given me in my first few months in this job. I do appreciate his experience. I will take the noble Lord’s point back and make sure it is clearly understood by the department when we consider how we respond to it. We believe in working with appointed ICBs, but we expect primary care to be consulted.
NHS England has also stressed the importance of ensuring that there are robust place-based structures in place. We hope that the ICB will exercise functions through place-based committees, where a wider group of members can take decisions, and we expect that primary care, including individuals from medical, dental, pharmaceutical and optical committees, will be particularly involved at the place-based level under the principle of subsidiarity. We will have some influence on the drafting of the forward plan of the ICB. Additionally, guidance that NHS England publishes for ICBs will include the commissioning of primary care at the place-based level.
Lord Warner (CB)
I have listened very carefully to what the Minister is saying in response to these amendments but, at the risk of being a historian again, is he aware that influence on key decision-making in the NHS is diminishing for primary care in general and GPs in particular? If we go back to 1990 and the GP fundholding changes to the NHS made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, if we move through the Blair years of practice-based commissioning and go to the changes by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, with clinical commissioning groups, these are three examples where GP influence on decision-making—strategic, local and tactical—is very considerable.
As far as I can see, that has been diminished in this Bill and they have been put back in their box without a lot of influence on key decision-making. They are poked down at the local place level. That is not right. What the Committee is saying needs to happen in the NHS. The Minister must go back to his department and talk through what is happening here, because it is diminishing the role of the GP in particular.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the Bill came because this is what the NHS wanted. But we must be clear who in the NHS wanted it, and it is obvious that it was the senior chief executives at the local level and NHS England. No wonder primary care has been completely squeezed out of it. Listening to this debate, it seems to me that the proposals from NHS England never had any scrutiny. Ministers just accepted this and, because NHS England does not engage externally, there has not been the testing that you would normally get, and we are having to do it now. Frankly, the wheels are falling off. It is tempting to invite the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to come in, because clearly CCGs were all about putting primary care in the driving seat. This seems to be removing them altogether and it is worrying.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, in response to that, may I say that when I was shadow Secretary of State for several years, GPs consistently told me that if only they were given the responsibility, they could do it so much better than primary care trusts? So we gave them the responsibility in ways that were very like the locality commissioning that was the endpoint of the GP fundholding of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham. To be fair to them, there was less money, but no sooner did they take this responsibility than NHS England said, “Hang on a minute, you’re not doing what we’ve told you to do.” It took about 18 months, perhaps slightly less, before NHS England effectively said, “You have no further autonomy. You’re going to be in the sustainability and transformation plans,” which are the forerunners of ICS. I do not think that the clinical commissioning groups ever got the chance to do what they were asked to.
We have now reached the point where, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, rightly says, they are being written out of the script, but they are not complaining, which is very interesting. They are not complaining because they do not want to be responsible for the budgets; they want to be responsible for the patients. They always said that they wanted to decide how locality commissioning should be done and the good ones have put tremendous things in place in terms of population health management, patient pathways and commissioning linked to those patient pathways. That is why, if we can do something with this Bill, it is to retain all that locality commissioning with GP input. But be prepared for the ICS, the big battalions, to go away and fight with the barons in the big hospitals.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Anyone else want to come in? Look, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and friendly advice, however put. Actually, I appreciate their passive-aggressive demeanour, in that way. I know it is all well-intentioned and that noble Lords speak from experience of previously tried schemes. The main point here is how we make sure that primary care is better represented and not dominated by acute trusts. I do not think I am going to have the answers to convince noble Lords completely or even partly tonight. Therefore, this clearly needs more discussion and for me to go back to my department, but also, once again, us to have another discussion on these issues between now and Report.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, can I quickly intervene? Of course, it is absolutely right that one should learn from history. But looking to the future, I just wonder whether the Minister has heard about the movement there is by some foundation trusts to try to take over primary care. I just wonder what the implications of that would be for primary care, whether he and his officials have heard of that and whether they would like to discover what that would do to patient care.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend; I was not aware of that. But at the end of the day, the result has to be the care that the patient receives. There will always be debates on how you can configure who should be involved at what level, but at the end of the day, it has to be the quality of the care the patient receives. To a wider point, we must also focus on prevention. We are seeing a lot of innovation in the primary sector; we are seeing GP services sometimes merge into primary care centres, taking on medical procedures that were previously considered the domain of hospitals. We have seen more blurring of the lines, and patients welcome that innovation in many cases.
What matters at the end of the day is the experience of the patient and making sure they have a decent service all the way through their life. It is one of the reasons we are talking about integration. In this country, care is literally from the cradle all the way to the grave, as we integrate social care more. That is why some of these discussions we have been having on social care and palliative care have been important. We are aware of that.
There are a couple more points I would like to make before I allow people to get in before the 5.30 pm deadline for getting a teacake. We support the idea that all areas should have an adequate number of GPs. That is why we launched the targeted enhanced recruitment scheme to attract doctors to train in locations that either have a history of under-recruitment or are currently finding it difficult recruiting. The scheme reflects the fact that trainees who are attracted to these areas usually stay on after training. Hundreds of doctors have trained in hard-to-recruit places since the scheme’s introduction, with 500 places available in 2021 and, we hope, 800 in 2022.
We also recognise that each community has different health needs, which emphasises the point noble Lords have made—that it is so important to hear the voice of primary care more loudly. We are taking steps to diversify the general practice workforce, such as by recruiting 26,000 more primary care staff. Making sure we have the correct mix of skills available in general practice is critical to delivering appropriate patient care across England.
One of the issues that we have to appreciate, though, is that as most GP practices are private partnerships and GPs are free to choose where they practise, a general medical practitioners equitable distribution board would have limited influence over the distribution of GPs across England, which is why we have to look at other ways to target those areas that are underserved. That is why it remains critical to continue encouraging trainees to train in hard-to-recruit areas and diversify the primary care workforce to support general practice in meeting the needs of its local community across England.
I have heard, once again, the mood of the Committee. That has become a familiar theme. I hope noble Lords will accept that I am open to further conversations in this area, particularly on how we hear the voices of all those in primary care, not just those of GPs but all of them, including those in ophthalmology, dental care and others. I hope that, in that spirit, noble Lords will feel it appropriate to withdraw or not move their amendments at this stage.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his response and all other noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I moved a rather modest little amendment but I am encouraged that it has stimulated such a rich discussion with so many knowledgeable contributions. If nothing else, my amendment has stimulated a discussion that has emphasised the importance of primary care. If we can take that message away, we will not have been wasting our time. I shall leave it there. I thank everyone for their contributions and the Minister for his response. I am sure he will have been enriched by the way the discussion has focused on the importance of primary care. It has been beneficial all round. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
Before I call the next amendment, I remind your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is taking part remotely.
Amendment 59
Lord Howarth of Newport
“(1A) To this end, an integrated care board must engage providers of non-clinical services, including creative and nature-based services and other services in the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector, ensuring that it has effective channels for dialogue with these sectors.”
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in this suite of amendments to Clause 20, which lays down duties on integrated care boards, I am proposing that we should articulate a duty for ICBs to embrace non-clinical practice in their whole way of working. By non-clinical practice, I am referring to a range of services and interventions that promote human flourishing, such as: engagement with the arts and culture to stimulate the creative imagination; a healthy discovery of meaning, self and personal agency; engagement with nature to provide a sense of wholeness, wonder and well-being; physical exercise and sport to energise the body and mind; engagement in voluntary work to lift people from self-absorption and melancholy, and to enable them so they are useful and valued members of society; and meditation to impart calm and perspective. All this is ancient wisdom that is being rediscovered by more and more people. This rediscovery is, indeed, innovative and the Bill requires ICBs to promote innovation.
In no sense am I suggesting that such practices should substitute for modern medicine where diagnosis and good sense indicate that modern medicine is needed. Modern medicine achieves extraordinary things, but too often we resort to it without first considering non-clinical approaches. As a society, we are over- medicating; witness the almost exponential growth in the prescribing of antidepressants. Our national passion for the NHS should not be an addiction. The NHS needs, gently but firmly, to steer us into asking less of it and taking more responsibility for maintaining our own health. That should be a new norm built into the legislative framework for the NHS that the Bill provides. Unless that happens, the system will collapse under the burden of the demands and expectations that it has created.
Unless the Government systemically address the social determinants of health, we shall not have a healthy society. The Bill, harking back to the time of Aneurin Bevan, who as Minister for Health was also Minister for Housing, rightly describes the provision of housing as a health-related service. Amendment 90 goes further, to insist on well-designed housing and urban and green environments. Research evidence shows that living in greener urban areas is associated with lower probabilities of cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, asthma and mental distress among adults, and obesity, poor cognitive development and myopia in children. In every place that ICBs serve, they should be promoting debate about what good urban design should mean and how it should be achieved. Encouragingly, in the new Ebbsfleet Garden City planners are co-locating cultural facilities alongside a health and well-being hub.
There is a substantial and growing body of high-quality research and evaluation demonstrating that creative health and other non-clinical approaches, as the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Arts, Health and Wellbeing said in its report, Creative Health,
“can help keep us well, aid our recovery from illness and support longer lives better lived … the arts can help meet major challenges facing health and social care: ageing, longterm conditions, loneliness and mental health”,
and
“the arts can save money in the health service and social care”.
Since the publication of that report in 2017, there has been increased recognition of this among health policymakers and in the clinical establishment. Research has been commissioned. The NHS long-term plan, with its new emphasis on prevention, acknowledged the benefits of social prescribing. The National Academy for Social Prescribing was set up. Link workers, linking GPs with community providers, are being funded, though not the community providers themselves. NASP has allocated £1.8 million to its thriving communities fund to increase the scale of social prescribing activities, and the Government have a £5.8 million cross-departmental project aimed at preventing and tackling mental health through green social prescribing.
However, this activity is still marginal and its funding almost indiscernible in the NHS budget. Amendments 104 and 105 make clear that an ICB has the power to fund non-clinical providers and that there must be financial equity between clinical and non-clinical providers. If the NHS will struggle to provide enough initially, the wider levelling-up strategy should enable that funding.
Non-clinical health providers cost a fraction of conventional medicine and represent remarkable value for money. The Evaluation Report of the Social Prescribing Demonstrator Site in Shropshire showed significant improvements in health factors such as weight, physical activity, smoking and blood pressure, and a reduction of up to 40% in GP appointments. Dance is inexpensive to lay on. As the Dancing in Time project in Leeds showed, by improving gait, flexibility and strength, it reduces falls among the elderly, who are expensive to repair.
To fail to invest on a reasonable scale in creative health and other non-clinical services is to look a gift horse in the mouth. This is recognised in some ICSs, with which the National Centre for Creative Health, a charity which I chair, is working on pilot schemes. In the Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin ICS, the personalised care team is using creative health and co-production methods with children and young people suffering from asthma. In the Suffolk and North East Essex ICS, clinicians looking for ways to support patients with long Covid have introduced singing for breathing, which is beneficial for lungs and loneliness. Creative Minds in the South West Yorkshire trust has developed creative activities that now benefit the physical and psychological well-being of 6,500 people a year. One user of the Creative Minds “Art for Well-being” programme, Debs Teale, a trustee of the NCCH, said:
“I am eternally grateful to … Creative Minds for giving me the wonderful opportunity to discover a mind released from the fog of depression. I have been five and a half years medication-free”.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. When I read these amendments I was immediately taken back about 20 years, to the offices of a charity that noble Lords might remember called the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers. It had a very worthy reputation. I think most people who knew vaguely of its work but did not know it in any great detail regarded it as middle-class do-gooders in bobble hats who went out and cleaned up local rivers and things that nobody else much bothered about. But 20 years ago, it began to do some of earliest work that charities did in drilling down into not only what they did but the impact of what they did. When the trust did that, it discovered two things. First, it discovered that the volunteers were much more diverse than one would have thought—there were all sorts of people from all sorts of different backgrounds, many of them in urban settings. Secondly, it found that the biggest impact it had was on the mental health of the people who volunteered. As an organisation, it tracked that as best it could in its non-clinical fashion.
I bring my observation up to date, to about three years ago, just before lockdown, when I had the great good fortune to be invited to the offices of Google one night. I remember it was a winter’s night with absolutely filthy weather, and 250 young people—or youngish people—turned up to talk about mental health and tech. The big question was around what we can do, given who we are, who we work for and the data that we are amassing now, about not just what people are doing but what they intend to do and the profiles we are beginning to build up about people’s behaviour.
It is to those two memories that I attach these amendments, because I think the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is right. Everybody knows the value of this—we all know it as individuals. Who did not go nuts during lockdown and head out to the nearest bit of green space to cheer themselves up? We all know it, but how do we prove it to those in the NHS who, rightly or wrongly, hold fast to scientific data and evidence?
My point is simply that we should be trying to get this on to the agenda of the acute services, rather than primary care, and that we need to do so in a way that is collaborative. I think we should be challenging the acute services to tell us how they would evaluate this—what evidence would convince them? It might be the sorts of biometric evidence that people who are involved in mindfulness are beginning to generate; the fact that we can actually see differences in people’s brain patterns if, over a sustained period of time, they are engaged in things such as mindfulness.
I sincerely hope that we do not pat these amendments on the head and send them on their usual way into the background and to the byways of primary care. I hope that, although the amendments may not make it into the Bill, noble Lords might well challenge the department, NHS England and the acute sector to see this as a far more important part of prevention, particularly in mental health but also in a number of physical conditions, than they might otherwise have done.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I am in favour of the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, specifically Amendments 59, 67, 71, 77, 80 and 82. My own Amendment 290 will be debated in group 41 and specifically addresses the importance of social prescribing for people with a dementia diagnosis and how this can form part of a wider care plan.
Social prescribing plays a very important role, not just for people with diagnosed conditions but generally, as part of wider brain health. Research by Arts 4 Dementia found that music-making provides a tool for a total brain workout and improves plasticity in the cortex, which enhances the ageing brain’s cognitive abilities, perception, motor function and working memory. It also improves cardiovascular strength while reducing stress. The Coda Music Trust provides a range of musical social ensembles and bands, as well as courses and classes for learning and well-being. In other studies, drama and poetry have been found to improve concentration and cause new neurons to develop and adapt.
Social prescribing has been recognised as playing an important role. It is part of the NHS long-term plan, and the Department of Health and Social Care has allocated funding to establish a national academy for social prescribing. This growing recognition of the role that social prescribing, specifically of music and art, can play in overall health is a welcome development because many of the programmes that exist at present rely on the voluntary sector.
During the pandemic, these programmes, like most of the voluntary sector, have struggled with funding and with being able to continue their work under Covid-19 restrictions. We also know that many arts venues have struggled through this time and many theatres and music venues now face an uncertain future. This sector therefore needs much more support right now if it is to continue its work. It is crucial that integrated care boards are empowered to promote social prescribing and can work with organisations that provide these services.
Although the evidence for the benefits of social prescribing is growing, more work is needed to research what types of social prescribing are successful for specific conditions, a point that I will elaborate on when we debate my Amendment 290, which addresses social prescribing and dementia. To help promote social prescribing, we need more training for GPs and other health professionals on how and when to prescribe these services. We also need to include arts awareness for mild cognitive impairment in the medical and social care educational curriculum.
There also needs to be greater availability of these services, with links to every GP. The current NICE guidelines for dementia recommend referring patients for these services only post diagnosis when, in fact, to promote overall well-being and brain health, we should encourage them much earlier from the onset of symptoms. For this, we need training, and integrated health boards must prioritise the availability of these services.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for these amendments and fully support their inclusion in the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, whom I have often heard recently. He confirmed that his blues band, Exiled in Brussels, will play at an event supporting Music for Dementia later this year.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, for his inspiring speech. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I also chair the University of Oxford’s Commission on Creating Healthy Cities, which brings together academics, policymakers and practitioners. We hope to support city leaders and their citizens by shedding light on the policy interventions that are most likely to be effective in enhancing the health of their cities.
The Oxford commission is not due to report until later this year, but it is already clear that the two core issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, in this group are likely to be central to our conclusions. The first relates to the wider determinants of health creation that take us beyond the integration of health and social care services towards recognising the relationship of public and personal health to other non-clinical services, including those affecting the built environment. The second issue relates to the value of engaging local and community organisations in a variety of ways in achieving health outcomes.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I also wish to support the amendments that have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and supported by other speakers. I do not want to make a long speech, but I want to add weight to the argument by standing up and offering support. I will not repeat his arguments, but I want to pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has done in this regard. He chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group which produced a report that was pivotal in taking this debate forward. The work that he has done with the National Centre for Creative Health has given us an army of evidence on its importance.
The amendments seem to fall into two groups. There are those around social prescribing for people with dementia as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, and the notion of health promotion by creating a better environment in which we live and preventing illness. That collection of amendments is an idea whose time has come. There is an amendment for later consideration to which I have added my name, for which the same arguments are being made for sport and recreation. I think of this as the whole area of health promotion, which is looking at non-clinical providers of healthcare. I think these amendments follow on very well from the last group of amendments that was debated.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, talked about the aims of this legislation as being about promoting well-being, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, gave a very good example of how a community centre that had doctors in it has become a medical centre, and the message that they gave. Every single one of us here could make the arguments that we have heard so far, either from our own example—from our own health and well-being—or from something we have seen.
I wanted to mention two things. First, I declare an interest: I am director of the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra, and the work that it does with Mersey Care NHS Foundation is magical. It sometimes goes unnoticed outside the region, but people with quite serious mental health needs are finding their well-being is promoted. They are enjoying themselves and feel more part of the community.
My second example is some work I did in Derbyshire with a charity of which I was patron, First Taste. The artwork it did in a care home meant that the prescription of drugs for sleeping and other things was reduced. All those arguments can be well made but my problem is this: I would have put money on no one standing up and arguing against these amendments. If you could stop 50 people out there and find three who will argue against these amendments, I would say “Well done”.
The danger for this area of policy is that no one is against it, but not enough is being done to get it to the top of the agenda. Sometimes, when no one is against it, you do not have the argument that promotes it up the national agenda. Everyone says “Great”, “We agree”, “It will be a great thing” and nothing happens. The stage of this area of policy is that everybody is doing a little bit. It is in the long-term plan. There are examples of good practice. We have the evidence that it works and the Government are investing some money, but it is never going to be an entitlement or a policy that has been enacted nationally unless something else happens.
In all public sector policies—it is the same in education—the biggest challenge is scaling up good practice. We now have lots of examples of good practice. What we need, and what is behind this amendment, is to scale it up so that it is not just a case of happening to live near an organisation or where somebody is making this happen. The amendments that we have, which are to the general duties of the integrated care boards, will be a step forward in trying to make this a national part of our well-being service. You are entitled to it; it is there and offered to you, no matter where you live.
That is the big task now. It is not making the case for social prescribing or non-clinical providers having a role to play in health promotion, but how we scale it up so that it goes higher up the agenda of people who are developing policy and deciding how resources should be spent in an area. Years ago, this would have been seen as a fringe interest and people might have thought the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, was eccentric in promoting such amendments. It is evidence-based now. It is what people know works and I think it is what people want. We just have to find a way of getting it up the agenda and making it happen. These amendments will go towards that end.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support this suite of amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. I know how passionate he feels about this issue and how much work he has done in this area over many years. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, has just taken the words right out of my mouth; I was going to start by saying that social prescribing is a phenomenon whose time has come. I think that is right. People understand that the approach of social prescribing is really opening up opportunities for people to improve health and well-being through non-clinical avenues. That is what this set of amendments is all about.
This is particularly relevant for people with long-term conditions and complex needs, particularly those with mental health conditions, suffering from dementia or experiencing loneliness. The one point I want to make, which I do not think has been talked about yet, goes right back to our opening debate today about how the ambitions of this Bill will be achieved only if there is true integration across health and social care. My big plea is: please do not forget social care when we are looking at this issue. When I say social care, I am thinking both about people who have domiciliary care in their own homes and people in care settings.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on introducing this very important group of amendments and other noble Lords who have made some very interesting points, such that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley: this is becoming received wisdom, whereas it might have been regarded as eccentric even five or 10 years ago.
I have three points to make. First, this is a Bill about integration and partnership. It would be good to have a clear message that non-clinical groups such as the ones we are talking about are part of that, in whatever is the appropriate way—a duty or obligation or something of that sort on in the Bill—without being too specific about the detail.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, made the point that this is the rediscovery of ancient wisdom, not least, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out, through Covid. I am talking about human flourishing going back to Aristotle and many others in the past: the merging of that ancient wisdom with very modern evidence—more evidence all the time about things such as relationships, as well as the arts and everything else that has an impact on our health.
My third point is about impact. I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Prescribed Drug Dependence. Last year, 17% of the adult population were prescribed antidepressants. That is a huge amount: when I see such a figure, I always have to remind myself that that means that 83% of us were not. However, 17% is a huge number, and the sort of things that we are talking about can reduce that number to the benefit of the people who would otherwise be prescribed antidepressants, making enormous economic savings, time savings and so on.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support this group of amendments. I would like to make sure that we realise that the medical humanities as a discipline have now been introduced in many medical schools. In my own, I was rather glad that AJ Cronin’s book The Citadel was introduced in general practice, particularly because, of course, he invented Dr Finlay, but there we are.
Quite seriously, we must not forget that loneliness kills. Loneliness is a true killer; it shortens lives. If people are not moving around well, they fall more and consume healthcare resources. Therefore, having green spaces and things such as sports for health, and so on is important. There is now also a body of evidence that the new intensive care units have used in the way that they are constructed, so that there is a view of outside spaces for those patients, rather than the total sensory deprivation that occurs to them in the very noisy and difficult environment of intensive care. Of course, music is used therapeutically during procedures and so on.
In the hospice world, lots of activities obviously go on in the day centres. As my noble friend Lady Greengross said, there is now good evidence for proper physiological mechanisms that explain why contact with these different disciplines—which were considered to be outside medicine—have a beneficial effect on healing, coping with pain and distress, resolving issues, reframing what is happening to you and so on.
I would like us not to forget that loneliness kills. Importantly, so many patients have said that they have a sense of personal worth when they are still able—however ill they are—to contribute to those around them and to a sense of community. These amendments go to the very heart of being human—that is, the inherent creativity within people that has been forgotten for decades in the provision of health and social care.
I can see that there are difficulties in bringing this into the Bill, but we should commend the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for the sophisticated way in which he has worded some of these amendments. I hope that they can be built on as we go forward. This could save a huge amount of money for the NHS in the longer term. A huge number of side-effects of drugs could be avoided. People could be fitter. There would be fewer forms. There is a great amount of optimism behind these amendments.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, what I want to say follows on very well from what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said. I want to quote Sir Michael Marmot. He said:
“We need to adopt a health and social care system which prioritises not just the treatment of illness but how it can be prevented in the first place. The pandemic has made it crystal clear … why public health and … social determinants of health are so important. The health and social care agenda must be rebalanced towards prevention.”
This is essentially what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is saying. It is not just about the treatment of illness but about preventing it happening in the first place.
I commend my own general practice in north London. In despair at the quantity of antidepressants being prescribed with very little result, it took to organising community groups to do cooking, set up friendship groups and put people in contact with each other. It puts on bring and buy sales—all with people who, perhaps, in the past, might just have been prescribed antidepressants.
I want to say a word about the charitable aspect—the voluntary sector—to which the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, referred. Charities cannot operate unless their core costs are met. My own GP practice which did this wonderful work had to go to the local authority and to the lottery to seek some funding. We have to remember that, if we want voluntary organisations to participate in these wonderful preventive services, we need to ensure that they are properly funded.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I join pretty much everyone else in commending the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for tabling these amendments. I have attached my name to Amendment 67, although it could have been to any of them.
It is worth making two broad points. In her wonderful contribution on the last group, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, used the really key phrase,
“the community provided the health”.
That is what this group of amendments is talking about.
A couple of groups back, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talked about how, if the health system is working for people with learning disabilities, it is working for everybody. If we bring in the kind of institutions, frameworks and supports that we are talking about here—if we think about stopping people getting ill and caring for ill people—we will make our communities vastly better for everybody. This is an important point to make.
Like most noble Lords, I could come up with a list as long as your arm of wonderful places I have visited. I will not, but I will mention one, which brings together three elements of this: creativity, nature and culture. The Green Backyard in Peterborough is the most wonderful space. I defy anyone to walk into it and not smile. It has amazing, colourful, moving sculptures powered by water, with food growing—amazing salads filled with flowers. When I visited, I spoke to the carer of another visitor. This visitor had very profound disabilities—she was blind and non-verbal—but her carer said, “I’ve never seen anything like it. After the first time we came to visit, the next Monday, which she knew was the day we visited, she was all packed up, dressed and ready to go out.” This was obviously catering to someone’s needs absolutely brilliantly, but it nearly got bulldozed and turned into a block of flats a few years ago. Luckily, it was saved, but that is the situation we so often find ourselves in.
I also want to mention Amendment 90, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has already said a great deal on this, so I will seek to add just a couple of small points—well, one small point and one quite big one. There is something called the lifetime homes standard, which I learned about when I visited Derwenthorpe in York with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The thing I remember about it, because it was so simple and obvious, was that the two-storey houses there had all been built with a space between the joists so that, if you needed to put a lift in up to the first floor, where the bedrooms were, it was a really simple and low-cost thing to do. It was a very simple piece of design. This will not be covered in the Health and Care Bill, but this relates to so many aspects of our society. You could say that housing is a health issue. In the first group this morning, we talked about social care and how many people cannot leave hospital and go home because their accommodation is unsuitable. We need to think all the way along the line across our society to make sure that does not happen.
Finally, I want to pick out one or two words in this amendment, which talks about housing and urban environments. I thought here of the New Ground co-housing development in north London, which is for women aged over 50. One aspect of it is looking at how people can support each other, be good neighbours and form a community that can provide support. This morning, I attended a King’s Fund briefing talking about social care and there was a great deal of talk about the need for digital innovation and technology. I tweeted, “What about social innovation?” We have to think about how we organise our societies and urban environments so that people can form those kinds of communities. If you visit any area of new housing being built around the country, there is typically precious little in it to encourage that kind of community development. The housing point is obvious, as is the environment point, but let us not lose the community and urban structure points from that amendment either.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, it has been an excellent debate. We have heard about all the various kinds of arts and the effect of housing. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, about sport and leisure. We heard about the importance of green spaces in helping us with our physical and mental health. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, rightly mentioned that loneliness kills. If one can address that, it affects not just one’s sense of worth and well-being, as has been said, but one’s sense of community.
Parliament is a community. It sometimes does not feel like it, because we have various groups, political parties, Members, staff and so on, but we also have a lot of all-party groups and this is significant. We have sports, arts and heritage, drama and music groups. I have been a member of the Parliament choir for 22 years and have found great solace in it—I really missed it during the pandemic.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Howarth has brought this suite of amendments in front of the Committee and is bringing the wealth of his experience to our debates on the Bill. He is a great proponent of the role and value of the non-clinical services in healthcare and well-being, and quite rightly too. It would be great if, somehow or other, this could be recognised in whatever comes out of our considerations, though I challenge the Minister to tell us how we might do that.
We support the amendments in this group to establish a role for wider considerations beyond remedial, interventionist clinically-led care. Amendment 90 covers housing. The role of decent housing in good health and in tackling health inequalities cannot be overestimated. Amendment 103A would require IBCs to consult on youth health prevention and treatment through an advisory board consisting of young people. All these amendments have huge merit.
I know that we will have a wider discussion about the role of the voluntary sector and social enterprises in provision of healthcare in a later group. However, voluntary and community organisations and social enterprises have been central to the delivery of non-clinical services in healthcare and well-being, particularly during the pandemic.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, before I respond on this group, I want to apologise for the chaos that I caused at the beginning of this Bill today. I hope that noble Lords did not think I was being discourteous to the House. Luckily, next Wednesday, normal services will be resumed when my noble friend Lady Penn is in her seat.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and other noble Lords for bringing this suite of amendments before the Committee. It was interesting that several noble Lords brought up my noble friend the Minister’s band, Exiled In Brussels, which I think he is now going to rename “Exiled From Brussels”. I can say that there is a YouTube clip of the band which my noble friend said he is willing to send out to everybody, so that is something to look forward to.
On Amendment 59, I recognise the noble Lord’s concern to ensure that the voluntary, community and social enterprise sectors are represented in the Bill. I understand the intention of his amendment. I certainly acknowledge the important work of these sectors and their contribution to our health system. I am sure that we all have examples of how these non-clinical services are of benefit to our health system.
However, our intention, quite rightly, is to use the Bill to set out a framework of duties for ICBs that ensures they fulfil their functions effectively while avoiding being overly prescriptive. The provision in question sets a clear requirement on ICBs to discharge their functions in a way that promotes continuous improvement in the quality of services, particularly in health outcomes.
The intention is to establish a culture of continuous improvement in everything the ICB does, but, importantly, leaving ICBs to decide how this will work for them. Setting specific parameters, as this amendment seeks to do, would in practice narrow the focus of how they may look to improve the quality of services. This may be to the detriment of taking a more holistic approach to how to improve the quality of services. That said, the current drafting of the provision would not prevent ICBs engaging providers of non-clinical services, including those mentioned in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport. Indeed, we would expect that, where appropriate, ICBs would consult with relevant stakeholders, such as those from the voluntary sector, to ensure continuous improvement.
Turning to Amendment 69, co-production, where people, family members, carers, organisations and commissioners work together as equal partners to design and deliver services, is an important principle, and one that we would expect ICBs to champion. This is reflected clearly in NHS England’s draft implementation guidance on working with people and communities, which also sets out several practical steps ICBs should consider to appropriately promote and embody co-production. This includes visibly supporting and sponsoring co-production, and supporting the adoption of co-production approaches where appropriate. I feel it is important to point out that mandating co-production in all circumstances risks narrowing the duty and may lead to other valuable methods of involvement being marginalised. Therefore, while it will often be a desirable aim that we would expect ICBs to pursue, it may not be appropriate in every case, and we want to allow ICBs and patients discretion to determine what is best in their area.
I will address Amendments 71 and 77 together. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and I appreciate the interest in including social prescribing in the Bill. On Amendment 77, I begin by assuring noble Lords that the Government are absolutely committed to the rollout of social prescribing in line with the NHS Long Term Plan commitment. The plan was to have 1,000 new link workers in place by 2020-21, a target which I am pleased to say has been exceeded, so that we now aim for at least 900,000 people to be able to be referred to social prescribing by 2023-24. As of September 2021, there were at least 1,582 social prescribing link workers in place. Furthermore, in relation to innovation, the Government have set up the National Academy for Social Prescribing, in line with our manifesto commitment, which has continued to support the expansion of social prescribing and promote innovation in health and well-being across all sectors.
The duty to patient choice should be considered by ICBs as part of the broader move towards more integrated, population health-management approaches. This requires embedding more personalised care models that enable patient choice and also consider non-clinical approaches, in line with the NHS Long Term Plan. This commitment is to make personalised care business as usual across the health and care system. Social prescribing and community-based support is already a core component of the NHS’s comprehensive model of personalised care. I hope I have reassured noble Lords of the progress being made and work being done on social prescribing and that they will feel able not to press these amendments.
I turn next to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which would insert a number of references to the voluntary community and social enterprise and creative and cultural sectors. This Government hugely value the contributions of the voluntary community and social enterprise sector, including creative and cultural entities, to the health and well-being of the nation, and recognise their important role in integrated care systems. However, we feel that the amendments are not necessary, as their intended effect is already possible through provisions within the Bill.
A key principle of the Bill is the legislative flexibility to empower local leaders to develop bespoke solutions to meet specific local needs. This principle is reflected in the current drafting of Clause 20. Several of these amendments would have the effect of being overly prescriptive in areas where we would already expect the VCSE sector to play a key role.
I assure noble Lords that many of these concerns will instead be addressed in guidance. NHS England and NHS Improvement have published guidance relevant to ICBs on partnerships with the voluntary community and social enterprise sector, outlining the importance of the VCSE sector as a key strategic partner in local health systems. It provides guidance on how VCSE partnerships should be embedded in how the ICBs operate. Furthermore, the guidance sets out that, soon after they are established, ICBs will be expected to develop a formal agreement for engaging and embedding the VCSE sector in system-level governance and decision-making arrangements.
I turn to related Amendment 80. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has a special interest in this issue, and I listened with interest to his speech at Second Reading on the work of the National Centre for Creative Health, which he chairs. Research is very important, and I am pleased to say that the department funds research in this area through the National Institute for Health Research. The NIHR funds and supports a range of research conducted by multidisciplinary researchers from diverse fields, including social sciences, behavioural sciences and the humanities. For example, the MODEM project, jointly funded by the NIHR and UKRI, reviewed evidence on music therapy and identified that a structured programme of music therapy given by a trained therapist can reduce agitation among people with dementia—which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, mentioned in her speech.
We do not consider it appropriate or necessary to specify particular research areas in primary legislation. In addition, we expect that ICBs will already promote a range of research, including those on non-medical interventions, and the noble Lord already cited in his Second Reading speech where this has been done by existing integrated care systems.
On Amendment 82, the Government place the utmost value on supporting the health and well-being of NHS staff. We are taking a range of actions to ensure that this remains a priority across the health and care system, and we do not believe that a legislative duty is needed in this area. Over the past two years we have seen as never before the intense pressures on the workforce, and we recognised at an early stage the toll that this may place on the mental health and well-being of health and care staff, with a clear need to prioritise enhanced well-being and mental health support for all NHS and social care staff. We all know that the whole country owes these staff an immense debt of gratitude.
At a national, strategic level, the People Plan, published in July 2020, puts NHS staff health and well-being at its core and ensures that all NHS staff have access to a comprehensive psychological and emotional support package. This includes a dedicated support line that is available for staff 24/7, and free access to mental health and well-being apps. Alongside this, 40 dedicated mental health hubs have been established and are accepting referrals across the country to proactively identify at-risk people and groups and focus on staff with more complex needs, ensuring that they receive rapid access to evidence-based mental health services. To ensure that this offer continues to improve staff mental health throughout 2021-22, an additional £37 million has been invested in 2021-22, building on the £15 million in 2020-21. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, will accept that this work is worth while and important and will continue without the need for legislative amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I would just like to go back to some of the earlier amendments and some of the words she used. She said this is included in the guidance on using social prescribing, and that it is expected that ICBs will work with local social enterprises, et cetera. I want to ask a question. If we were talking about NICE-recommended medical treatments or the best possible surgical procedures, would we be saying that it is expected that ICBs will do this as it is included in the guidance? This picks up on the point the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, was saying that this still seems to be somewhere in the second class, and it should be up there in the first class, treated in the same way as a medical treatment or a medical device.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
Well, I think it is, actually. We all realise how important it is. Social prescribing is a key component of the NHS’s universal personalised care. It is a way for GPs or local agencies to refer people to a link worker. Link workers give people time to focus on what matters and take a holistic approach to people’s health and well-being. They connect people to community groups and statutory services for practical and emotional support.
For instance, a man had bad bronchitis and asthma and was continually going to the doctor and costing the NHS a great deal of money; and it was agreed that a humidifier would be prescribed to him for his house at £800, and that has been a huge success, with the result that he has not gone to the GP once for a whole year. I think social prescribing can work well for those who are socially isolated, whose well-being is impacted by non-medical issues and who routinely present to primary or secondary care as a result. We certainly are taking it seriously.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is taking part remotely. I invite him to speak.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the considerable number of noble Lords who have taken part in this reflective, interesting and important debate. I am most encouraged by the appreciation that has been expressed all around the House for the importance of the considerations that I have sought to advance in this suite of amendments.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for her opening speech, which very much set the tone of the subsequent debate, and for sharing with us her memories of Google on a winter’s night. She made a particularly important point about evidence that is developing to demonstrate, for example, that the practice of mindfulness has benign effects on brain development. That is profoundly important for health. This needs to be understood and taken seriously by those who fund research and those who are pioneering practice within the NHS.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, may remember, as I do fondly, that, many years ago—I mention this particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—he showed me the Lifetime Homes project that he led when he was in charge of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in York. He has been an advocate of the importance of well-designed housing for a long time and is a voice that is hugely respected on this, as on so many other subjects, in your Lordships’ House.
My noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley raised the important point that yes, we have come a long way and these ideas are no longer seen as eccentric, but, at the same time, unless policy is much more clearly enunciated and embedded, little, if anything, will really change. That is a question that the Minister did not adequately address, but I shall come back to it in a moment.
I was also grateful for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the emphasis that she rightly gave to the contribution that the arts, creativity and other non-clinical services can make to the well-being of people in social care. I should mention that the charity Live Music Now, founded many years ago by Lord Yehudi Menuhin, has been supporting young professional musicians to perform in social care settings for many decades. That is hugely appreciated and beneficial. If his efforts were supplemented by those of the mother of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—indeed, by the noble Baroness herself—so much the better.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has thought more deeply about these matters than almost anyone else I know. Along with other noble Lords, he is a valued participant in the work of the All-Party Group on Arts, Health and Wellbeing. I commend to noble Lords a recent and beautiful article written by him in Prospect magazine, entitled, “What Aristotle can teach us about building a better society”. In it he writes so wisely and so well about health and human flourishing. As he will be aware, I am indebted to him for some of the language I used in my opening speech.
My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley made a crucial point about how essential it is that funding is provided to cover the core costs of the voluntary and charitable organisations upon which we so largely depend for the delivery of non-clinical services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, gave us the stark warning: loneliness kills. I very much appreciate her deep understanding and acceptance of the propositions that I and others have been making around creative health, and the support that she gave us in the creative health project.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, made a particularly important, specific and practical recommendation that people should be referred for music therapy or other kinds of creative health interventions at the onset of symptoms of dementia without having to wait for perhaps many months for a formal diagnosis.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, who was, after all, a nurse, personally appreciates the significance and value of what we have been talking about, even if she was briefed to bat away these amendments. She sweetened the pill by promising us a viewing of the YouTube clip of the Minister’s band.
I understand why the noble Baroness contended that the Bill should not be overly prescriptive, but, if that is so, I wonder how she answers the crucial question posed by my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley: if we do not embed these duties—I would contend they are legislative duties—and responsibilities in the formal arrangements of the system, how are we going to get the step change and scaling up? How are we going to get the decisive shift in the culture to make non-clinical approaches truly integral to the practice of health and social care?
I was surprised when the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, advised us that these amendments could have the perverse effect of militating against a holistic approach, but she gave encouragement in what she said about the VCSE sector, in the willingness of the National Institute for Health Research to provide funding and in the thoughtful, extended observation she made about staff needs and the importance of housing. She said that housing is a local authority responsibility. Yes, that is technically true, but that is exactly the problem we debated earlier this afternoon, on which my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath energetically put forward his thoughts, supported by many other noble Lords. If the Bill continues to demarcate the responsibilities of the NHS and local government in the way it so far does, it will fail to achieve integration in very important respects—and surely we do not want that sort of failure.
It is precisely because of the pressures of Covid and of the backlog, which will make huge demands on NHS resources, thinking and energy for a very long time to come, that it is all the more important that we should enact into law a duty on ICBs continually, from the moment of their formal inception and sustained through the years to come, to operate strategies for the prevention of ill health and the positive creation of a healthy society, working in a multitude of ways with the populations they serve. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and give notice that I do not wish to move any of the other amendments in this group.