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
Mr Speaker
Order. Before we come to questions, I wish to make a short statement in relation to question 5. I am exercising the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on sub judice matters to allow a full reference to the Northern Ireland protocol.
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
The Minister for the Middle East, North Africa and North America (James Cleverly)
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Israeli President Mr Herzog and the Israeli Foreign Minister Lapid during their respective visits to the UK in November. I also recently discussed the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories with Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Roll and Palestinian Prime Minister Shtayyeh.
The Foreign Secretary made clear her commitment to the Abraham accords at the Gulf Co-operation Council-United Kingdom Foreign Ministers’ meeting on 20 December. The UK is working with Gulf partners to help deliver shared prosperity and security for Arabs and Israelis alike. We support the objectives of the US Middle East Partnership for Peace Act and we will continue to engage with the US to identify opportunities for further collaboration. I outlined the UK’s support for increasing dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians at the Alliance for Middle East Peace’s “light the way” gala on 12 December.
Alan Brown
Meanwhile, evictions and demolitions continue in East Jerusalem aimed at eradicating Palestinian presence from the whole basin, with a cemetery desecrated to make way for a Jewish national park and new settlements planned that are designed to smash the concept of a two-state solution. When will the UK Government actually take actions to demonstrate that violations of international law do indeed have consequences?
James Cleverly
The UK enjoys a close and important relationship with Israel, and that enables us to raise important issues such as settlement demolitions directly with the Israeli Government, which we do. The UK’s long-standing policy is to pursue actions that support the creation of a viable two-state solution, and that will remain the focus of our engagement with both the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
Stephen Crabb
If anybody wants to see something genuinely positive and uplifting in foreign affairs, they should look at the Abraham accords and the fruit stemming from them in the remarkable growth in trade, investment and people-to-people contact between Israel, the United Arab Emirates and other Arab states. Given the UK’s excellent relations throughout the Gulf region and our bilateral ties with Israel, does my right hon. Friend agree that we are well placed to help foster the growth of the Abraham accords’ fruit? Will he look at how he can encourage other states to embark on the same journey of peace and friendship with Israel?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the UK enjoys excellent relations with all the signatory nations to the Abraham accords. Indeed, I was in Bahrain when the first ever Bahraini ambassador to the state of Israel was announced, and it was genuinely a joyous occasion. The UK will continue to support the Abraham accords and greater joint working between the states in the region. Ultimately, that is the best way to pursue peace, prosperity and freedom for all.
Holly Lynch
In 2017, I had the opportunity to visit Israel and Palestine, and what I saw in the west bank really shocked me. We must never see a return to last year’s violence. Will the Minister renew our commitment to an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace, based on the model of the International Fund for Ireland, and update the House on our international efforts to make the fund and lasting peace a reality?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady makes an important point about the relationships between Israelis and Palestinians. The UK has, does and will continue to support and facilitate people-to-people contacts and cross-community contacts as well as ensuring that the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority also have a good working relationship. That is and will remain a foundation stone of our foreign policy in the region.
With regard to ALLMEP—the Alliance for Middle East Peace—we have had discussions with the United States of America, and I have had discussions with representatives of the organisation. We will continue to explore what role the UK might play in the future delivery of that.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
The successful conclusion of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians is key to bringing peace to the region, yet Hamas publicly condemn peace negotiations and has committed itself to Israel’s destruction. Does my right hon. Friend agree that until Hamas disarms, Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a terror group which calls for its very destruction?
James Cleverly
Hamas has not proven itself to be good for the Palestinian people. The simple truth is that its aggressive posture and threats to eradicate the state of Israel have harmed relations between Israelis and Palestinians. We wish to see a viable two-state solution with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in peace, prosperity and freedom. Hamas has long been a roadblock to that. We call upon it to set aside its violent ways and pursue a path to peace.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for the Middle East, North Africa and North America (James Cleverly)
The UK has supported more than 3,400 people in leaving Afghanistan since the end of the Operation Pitting evacuation and we will continue in our efforts. The UK is contributing £286 million in humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan in this financial year and we have disbursed more than £145 million already so far. My noble Friend Lord Ahmad visited Qatar on 17 January to discuss these issues directly with the Qatari Government.
Dr Huq
What was a monumental military miscalculation has turned into a humanitarian catastrophe, with Gordon Brown—bless his cotton socks—warning of 23 million people, including women and children, facing starvation. That is 97% of the population below the poverty line. What are the Government doing to ensure that aid bypasses the Taliban and reaches those in need, who include constituents of ours—British nationals who are still trapped in that nightmare, harbouring hopes of getting home?
James Cleverly
As I said in response to the hon. Lady’s initial question, the UK has committed £286 million and already distributed £145 million. We recognise that there is a pragmatic need to have a relationship of some sort with the Taliban. However, our conditions for that have always been clear. They need to renounce violence, not be a haven for terrorism and not take part in reprisal actions. Aid diversion is always an important consideration and that is as true in Afghanistan as it is anywhere else. We are seeking to support the Afghan people, not prop up the Taliban regime.
Mr Virendra Sharma
Yesterday I heard the shocking story of a refugee stuck in Iran, unable to leave because he has been told he needs to register with the Iranian Government. There have been cases of refugees in Iran being returned to their countries of origin, so he is too scared to register. Will the Minister act to ensure that cases such as that do not occur, secure a safe route and meet me to discuss this special case?
James Cleverly
I invite the hon. Gentleman to write to me about the case. My noble Friend Lord Ahmad speaks with countries in the region that border Afghanistan. The House will be unsurprised to hear that our relationship with Iran is more strained than the relationship we have with other countries in the region. Nevertheless, we recognise that land routes across to Iran are an exit route for some people who are in fear of their lives in Afghanistan. It is not possible for me to comment on individual cases without more details.
Rachael Maskell
Afghan citizens at risk cannot move, because without safe destinations and third countries to escape to, they will not be safeguarded by the specific measures in place against many of the risks they are experiencing in Kabul. With the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme inoperable and Government promises to protect minoritised groups and human rights activists and campaigners in tatters, what discussions is the Minister having with the leadership in third countries to guarantee a safe destination? How is the UK contributing to the safety of those people at this time?
James Cleverly
I refer the hon. Lady to the answers I have already given on this issue. We have supported more than 3,400 people in leaving Afghanistan since the end of the Operation Pitting evacuation in August. That includes more than 2,200 Afghan citizens who either worked for the UK or worked in support of the UK’s objectives, or who are vulnerable—female judges, LGBT activists and injured children, for example. The UK is absolutely playing its part and we will continue to liaise with other countries, both in the region and those bordering Afghanistan, to help alleviate the terrible situation that Afghans find themselves in.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
The all-party parliamentary group on Afghanistan invite the Minister’s Department to give an update on what representations the Department has made to international counterparts about the force used by the Taliban against those protesting against deteriorating living standards, in line with the comments by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell).
James Cleverly
I will pass my hon. Friend’s comments to our noble Friend Lord Ahmad, who I know takes these issues incredibly seriously. He visited New York in October to hold events with Afghan women and to speak in the UN’s annual debate on women, peace and security. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has visited a number of countries in the region and beyond to solicit their support in alleviating the situation in Afghanistan.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Open Doors world watch list identifies Afghanistan as the most dangerous place in the world to be a Christian. Will the Government put the protection and support of Christians around the world and in Afghanistan at the heart of their foreign policy?
James Cleverly
Freedom of religion or belief remains an incredibly important strand of UK foreign policy. The plight of Christians in Afghanistan is dire, but indeed that reflects the plight of a number of other religious and ethnic minorities in Afghanistan. A cornerstone of our foreign policy is our pursuit of genuine freedom for all, and freedom of religion or belief is an important part of that—without it, is anyone really free at all?
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Many of my constituents have connections to people stuck in Afghanistan who they believe would have had a pre-existing visa entitlement to come to the UK. What steps will the Government take to ensure that those people who would have been entitled, had the Afghan Government not fallen, can come and join their families in Wycombe?
James Cleverly
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office have maintained a close working relationship on such issues throughout this situation. Entitlement for foreign nationals to settle in the UK is ultimately a Home Office competency, but we will continue to work closely with the Home Office on such issues.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
The situation facing millions of Afghans right now is unimaginable—starving families lining up for food; parents selling their babies and handing teenage daughters to the Taliban for cash; a mother so desperate that she sold her kidney and two of her daughters. Yet amid this horror the UK Government slashed the overseas aid budget, actually cut their support for Afghanistan from 2019 levels and, with only two months to go, disbursed only half of the humanitarian aid and assistance they promised. With 5 million children now on the brink of famine, will the Government show leadership by releasing the remainder of the pledge and taking the action proposed by the UN, Save the Children and former Prime Minister Gordon Brown by convening a humanitarian pledging conference to raise the £5 billion needed? Failure to act will cost more lives.
James Cleverly
I remind the hon. Lady that the £286 million that we have allocated to Afghanistan was put in place in the autumn, and we are still ensuring that the money is distributed. She made the important point that doing so quickly can sometimes come at the cost of doing so carefully. We want to ensure that our money reaches the people who are in need and is not diverted to support the Taliban regime. The UK remains at the forefront of international efforts to support Afghanistan, and I am proud of the work that my Department and the whole UK Government have done.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
Democracy and freedom are at the heart of our Foreign Secretary’s vision for a network of liberty that will use partnerships in trade, security and technology to promote democratic values. We are committed to working with partners and allies across the world, including civil society, to support more open, inclusive and accountable societies.
Lia Nici
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the people of Ukraine chose for it to become a free and independent country, which, rightly, was supported by the United Kingdom. At this time of Russian threat, can the Minister confirm that she will do all she can to ensure that it stays free, whether by diplomatic, economic or military means?
Vicky Ford
The UK and our allies are unwavering in our support of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Any Russian military incursion into Ukraine would be a massive strategic mistake and would come at a severe cost to Russia. We are working with our partners to develop a package of broad and high-impact sanctions that target the Russian financial sector and individuals. We are also providing a range of support to enhance Ukraine’s defensive capability.
Richard Graham
I saw in Sarajevo last week how well appreciated is the Government’s robust response to the secession threat from Republika Srpska and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and how appreciated is the Westminster Foundation for Democracy’s five-year programme that works closely with missions there on more inclusive community and political leadership. That valuable programme comes to an end at the end of March and does not have certainty of further funding, so will the Minister do all she can to expedite budget decisions so that it can continue across the region?
Vicky Ford
I thank my hon. Friend for his work as chair of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and for all the good that that organisation does globally, including in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are proud supporters of it and especially of its work to increase the participation of women and young people in politics. On funding decisions, the Foreign Secretary has been clear that we intend to restore funding to women and girls and to humanitarian programmes. We will finalise budget allocations shortly.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
When it comes to democracy and supporting civil society, one of the best things that the Government have done is establishing the Jo Cox memorial grants, which fund precisely the sort of women’s empowerment organisations that strengthen civil society, and with which Jo worked throughout her life. Through the Minister, I ask whether the Foreign Secretary would consider meeting me and colleagues from all parties who supported the creation of those grants and would like to discuss the future of them with her.
Vicky Ford
We have made it clear that we have a clear role to promote freedom and democracy. That is a core mission of the FCDO. I did not know Jo Cox as, sadly, I arrived in the House after she had left us, but her legacy lives on. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary would be very happy to meet those who work to keep that legacy going.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
There is common agreement across the House that Britain’s soft power is of inestimable value, so why are the Government placing the British Council in a situation where it may be forced to close 20 of its offices?
Vicky Ford
As I said, we are looking at budget allocations for the years ahead now that we have a three-year settlement review from the Treasury. Budget decisions have not yet been made.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Time and again in this House, the Labour party has raised the issue of the failure to act on the Russia report. The Government have been painfully slow at bringing forward the action that we need to implement its recommendations. With mounting threats of Russian hostility, can the Minister tell the House what discussions she has had with colleagues across Government on the proposed implementation of the counter state threats Bill, the new and refreshed Computer Misuse Act 1990, the reform of Companies House and the register of property ownership, so that London will no longer have the reputation of being the laundromat for the dirty money that comes out of such regimes?
Vicky Ford
Discussions across Government are still continuing.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
Mr Speaker, happy Burns night to you and to colleagues later on.
“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us”
would be a useful thing for those on the Treasury Bench to remember at the moment.
The best contribution that we, however we define ourselves, can make is to help other countries with resilience against disinformation, and I would praise to the rafters the Resist toolkit run out of the Cabinet Office. We already have a set of measures that we can use to assist other countries to combat disinformation. Could the Minister assure us that this will be beefed up, better financed and rolled out internationally? It is a very good domestic toolkit, but we could do a lot more to it, because plenty of other places really need it.
Vicky Ford
The integrated review made it very clear that the UK will be a responsible and democratic cyber-power. We intend to use our global network to strengthen the case for open, peaceful and secure digital space, pushing back against those who misuse technology or spread disinformation to undermine democracy.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Could the Minister reassure the House that there are no other Members who have received hundreds of thousands of pounds of funding without question from hostile actors, and what confidence the public can therefore have in this Parliament?
Vicky Ford
I am sure that all Members of the House have been watching these stories very closely. Let me just say that the UK does want to have a mature, positive relationship with China based on mutual respect, but we will not sacrifice our values or our security.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
The fact is that the Northern Ireland protocol is not working. We need to make sure that the dispute resolution mechanism under the protocol is in line with that in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement and end the role of the European Court of Justice as the final arbiter.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that reply, but as she will know, article 5 of the protocol requires Northern Ireland to maintain regulatory alignment with EU rules governing manufactured and agricultural goods; there are about 287 in all, set out in annex 2. Do the Government agree that that regulatory alignment should continue, and if so, what type of dispute resolution mechanism does the Foreign Secretary think would be appropriate to determine whether those rules are in fact being applied?
Elizabeth Truss
Our view is that the type of arbitration mechanism we need is the type in any standard trade agreement, which is an independent arbitration mechanism.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Recent Office for National Statistics data shows the Northern Ireland economy recovering more quickly from the pandemic than any other part of the UK, and a survey by Queen’s University has shown that, while people remain concerned about the impact of Brexit, the majority feels that the protocol is providing a unique trading position compared with Great Britain. While there are clearly some specific issues to be resolved, does the Foreign Secretary not recognise that demands to exclude the ECJ are confrontational, and suggestions that article 16 removes the protocol in its entirety are misleading and are creating unrealistic expectations within Northern Ireland?
Elizabeth Truss
I am taking a constructive approach to these negotiations. I was in Brussels yesterday meeting Maroš Šefčovič, and I do believe there is a deal to be done that helps protect peace and political stability in Northern Ireland and enables the free flow of goods between GB and Northern Ireland. Our officials are negotiating all this week, and I will be seeing Maroš Šefčovič again next week to make positive progress.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s constructive approach to the negotiations, but two years on from Brexit, can she confirm that disputes cannot go unresolved forever and that this situation has to be brought to an end sooner rather than later?
Elizabeth Truss
I completely agree with my hon. Friend on the urgency of this situation, which is why we have been holding intensive talks with the EU to resolve the very real issues there are for traders in GB and Northern Ireland. We do need to make sure that we maintain the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and that we fix this issue once and for all.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Is the Secretary of State aware that confidence in Northern Ireland that the Government will take decisive action on this and do it quickly has evaporated? We need to see that action taken immediately.
Elizabeth Truss
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am working very hard with my EU counterparts to resolve the difficult situation in Northern Ireland. We need to sort this out as soon as possible, and that is why we are in intensive negotiations. I believe that there is a deal to be done and that that is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, the people of Great Britain and the people of the EU.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
We have learned that viruses and many infectious agents do not stick to international or, indeed, domestic borders. That is all too true in the human setting, but also in the veterinary setting. With that in mind, what discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the EU about the possibility of a veterinary or sanitary and phytosanitary agreement?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend makes a good point about biosecurity. Of course, that is a key priority for us and the European Union. We are exploring all options that maintain the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the UK. I completely recognise what my hon. Friend says: those issues cross borders, so of course we need to work with our EU partners to sort them out.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
I hosted Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba in London in December. I speak to him regularly and I will be visiting Ukraine next week.
A further military incursion by Russia into Ukraine would be a massive strategic mistake and come with a severe cost to Russia’s economy, including co-ordinated sanctions.
Dave Doogan
I am pleased to hear about the bilateral discussions between the UK and Kyiv, but with the threat of serious conflict looming over Europe, what meetings has the Foreign Secretary held in recent days with the Prime Minister to discuss the crisis? Can she expand on the intellectual heft or geostrategic advice he applied to her at those meetings?
Elizabeth Truss
I met the Prime Minister last night to discuss this very serious issue. He had a call with President Biden, President Macron and Chancellor Scholz to continue to co-ordinate our efforts. Yesterday, I met the Secretary-General of NATO to talk about the contribution that the United Kingdom is making. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the UK is at the forefront of putting pressure on Russia and supporting our friends in Ukraine.
Nia Griffith
I appreciate that the Secretary of State may be limited in what she can say in response to my question. The use of propaganda and deceit in warfare is as old as the Trojan horse, but nowadays it can reach millions in a matter of minutes from heavily disguised sources. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government acknowledge the wide-ranging nature of the Russian threat and tell us what role UK experts are playing with NATO allies and Ukrainian counterparts to combat the use of powerful and far-reaching misinformation campaigns?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Lady makes the very important point that, as well as the risk of an incursion into Ukraine, there are efforts by the Russian Government to destabilise and undermine democracy. That is why we released intelligence to expose Russian attempts to install a puppet regime in Kyiv. We will continue to expose their playbook, including false flag operations, disinformation and cyber-attacks.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments. She will know that the Foreign Affairs Committee was in Ukraine last week. I would like to place on record my thanks to Ambassador Simmons and her impressive team in Kyiv, who are serving our country extremely well. We are off to Sarajevo tomorrow. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are seeing an arc of instability from Moscow, designed to put democracies on the back foot and make Putin’s regime look normal in a world of corrupt thieves? Will she reiterate her stance in the defence of freedom and promise to speak to our German friends about their decision not to support Ukraine with the sale of military weapons from Estonia, which was so recently denied?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the undermining that Russia is seeking to do of European democracy, including Ukraine, and Russia’s activities through Belarus and its activities in the Balkans. That is why we have appointed Sir Stuart Peach as our envoy to the Balkans and why I hosted a meeting of all the Balkans Ministers to discuss this issue. We need all our allies to step up. The UK is providing defensive weapons to Ukraine, we are supporting Ukraine economically and we are helping to train its armed forces. We need all our allies to get behind that, because ultimately, we do not want to see a Russian incursion into Ukraine, which would lead to huge loss of life and a huge quagmire, and we need to make Russia absolutely clear about that.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
To build on my right hon. Friend’s answer, what assessment has her Department made of Russia’s other surrounding nations and their territorial and sovereign integrity? I am thinking especially of Azerbaijan and Armenia. Are the actions going on in Ukraine being assessed in respect of whether the west would take any intervention on Russian invasion in those areas?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. We are working with allies and partners across the world because this is a threat not just to Europe, but to broader global stability. I was at a meeting of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in November where many of those countries were represented, and I saw very strong statements against further Russian action in the region.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
As we stand here today, peace in Europe faces its greatest threat in decades. Our darkest moments in history have taught us that aggression must be challenged and bullies must be confronted. Putin’s imperialism must be met with our utmost strength and resolve. Twenty-eight years ago, Britain, America and Russia promised that if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, its sovereignty would be assured. Putin has already run roughshod over that by annexing Crimea and backing separatists in the Donbass. Now he threatens Ukraine with full invasion. I ask the Secretary of State: at a time when arms control treaties have unravelled and non-proliferation efforts are under great strain, what message would it send to other countries in the world with nuclear ambitions, such as Iran, if those assurances to Ukraine were worth nothing?
Elizabeth Truss
The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. In the 1994 Budapest memorandum, Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for the continued protection of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is absolutely right that this is about not just European security, which is incredibly important, but the response we will see from other authoritarian regimes around the world if Putin is allowed to get away with what he is seeking to do. That is why it is important that we work with allies, from Japan to India to Australia, as well as the United States and our NATO allies, to strengthen our resolve and our security and to make it absolutely clear that none of these regimes will succeed.
Mr Lammy
We owe it to the people of Ukraine to send a simple and united message: we support their sovereign democratic right to choose their own destiny and we will stand with them in this struggle against Putin’s reckless aggression. And we should send a firm, unambiguous message to Putin that any aggression will come at a high price, so will the Secretary of State assure me that any Russian military incursion or attack will be met with a full package of sanctions, unprecedented in depth and severity, cutting Russia out of the global financial system, blocking rouble conversion, halting exports of semiconductors and finally clamping down on the oligarchs who hide their ill-gotten wealth in this capital city?
Elizabeth Truss
I strongly agree again with the right hon. Gentleman. We will make sure that we have the wherewithal to have a very severe package of sanctions in the case of any Russian incursion into Ukraine. We have been working with allies such as the United States, France and Germany to put that together. That is why we brought people together at the G7 in Liverpool, where we said that there would be severe economic consequences of an incursion into Ukraine. It is important, at this moment, that we see all our partners around the world step up. We are leading by example, but we want to see others follow that example.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
The Minister for the Middle East, North Africa and North America (James Cleverly)
We are building a network of security partnerships to protect our people, our partners and our freedoms. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already outlined a number of interactions that she has had at multilateral and bilateral level, which echo conversations that the Prime Minister had last week. The Foreign Secretary was in Australia alongside the Defence Secretary for talks with our Australian counterparts, and on 12 January I was at the NATO headquarters alongside European and Atlantic allies for the NATO-Russia Council. As the Foreign Secretary has made clear, we are working through those partnerships to advance our interests from a position of strength.
Dehenna Davison
I am very proud of the firm support that the UK has shown for Ukraine as we see increasingly unstable and threatening behaviour from Russia. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that as Russia’s threatening behaviour towards Ukraine continues and intensifies, he and all Ministers are working with our global partners to encourage further support for Ukraine?
James Cleverly
I can absolutely confirm that our support for Ukraine is discharged not only bilaterally, with training teams and defensive military equipment support, but with work at a multinational level through the Quad, which I attended recently, through NATO and through other international institutions such as the G7, to ensure that all countries support the principles of self-determination, territorial integrity, peace and freedom.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Select Committee on International Development.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
As the world becomes more dangerous and more uncertain, we need to tackle the root causes of security threats to the UK, namely poverty and instability overseas. I therefore find it very concerning that spending allocations for the conflict, stability and security fund show huge reductions to aid programmes around the world for this financial year: a 63% drop in funding in the middle east and north Africa, for example, and a 53% reduction in the western Balkans. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s cuts throughout overseas development are compromising UK security and global stability? What will the Government do to address that?
James Cleverly
We have spoken at length in this House about the economic impact that the country and indeed the world have felt from covid, which has forced us temporarily to reduce our expenditure on official development assistance. We have had confirmation that we will return to 0.7%. With respect to the historical reductions in key areas such as humanitarian aid and women and girls, we will ensure that that money is returned to the budgets, as the Foreign Secretary has made clear. The process for future budget allocations has not concluded; until it has, any talk about figures can only be speculative on the hon. Lady’s part.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
While all eyes have been on Ukraine, my right hon. Friend will be aware that as a result of recent Russian naval activity, Sweden has taken the decision to send hundreds of troops and arms to the island of Gotland in the Baltic. What are the Government doing to support Baltic and Nordic countries, which feel very much in the frontline, against Russian aggression?
James Cleverly
I can confirm that the Defence Secretary has been doing a lot of work in that area. The Foreign Secretary was in Riga not so long ago. We absolutely recognise that our northern partners, the Baltic states and the Scandinavian countries, are in a geographically difficult and vulnerable place. I can assure my hon. Friend that our support for freedom, democracy and peace extends to that part of the world, as well as to more high-profile issues such as those in Ukraine.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The Minister for the Middle East, North Africa and North America (James Cleverly)
I can assure the right hon. Lady and the House that we remain committed to securing the immediate and permanent release of those British dual nationals unfairly detained in Iran. We continue to work together with our international partners. The Foreign Secretary pressed the Iranian Foreign Minister on 8 November for Anoosheh Ashoori, Morad Tahbaz and Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe to be released and to return home to be with their families as soon as possible. I raised their cases with my Iranian counterpart, Deputy Foreign Minister Bagheri Kani, on 11 November. We continue to call on Iran to do the right thing and allow the immediate release and return home of these British dual nationals.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Minister for his answer, but that was in November. Anoosheh Ashoori is on hunger strike and he needs diplomatic protection. He is innocent. Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, six years a hostage: innocent. Morad Tahbaz, an environmentalist: innocent. Mehran Raoof, a trade unionist: innocent. Will the Minister commit to working closely with the United States special envoy Robert Malley to bring these innocent hostages home?
James Cleverly
I would remind the right hon. Lady of the point I made before. Our Department works tirelessly, daily, in our attempts to bring these people home and we do so not because questions are raised in the House or sent to us in correspondence but because it is the right thing to do and it is what we are committed to doing. We work tirelessly with international partners, both in the region and across the Atlantic, to bring about the release of these people, whose detention is completely illegitimate and completely wrong and is the sole responsibility of the Iranian Government. They are the ones who are in the position to release these people and we call on them to do so immediately.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Minister for the Middle East, North Africa and North America (James Cleverly)
A negotiated political settlement is the only way to bring long-term stability to Yemen. On 10 January, I hosted the UN special envoy for Yemen, Hans Grundberg, here in London and reiterated UK support for the UN-led peace process to drive forward the political process in Yemen. We urge the parties to engage constructively in negotiations to end this conflict, which is bringing death and suffering on an appalling scale.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for that answer, but this brutal conflict is in its ninth year. Recent deadly coalition-led attacks on children and civilians have rightly been condemned by the UN General Secretary. As the UK is the penholder at the UN for Yemen, does he believe that the continued sales of arms from the UK and the recent withdrawal of UK aid are helping or hindering diplomatic efforts?
James Cleverly
The money that the UK has allocated and distributed in Yemen has helped to protect lives and feed children, and I am incredibly proud of the work we have done. The fact of the matter, however, is that we cannot properly help the people of Yemen until this conflict has come to a conclusion. That is why we continue to work with the United Nations special envoy, Hans Grundberg. I remind the hon. Lady that aggression has been perpetrated by the Houthis in Yemen and across the borders in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. We call upon the Houthis to lay down their arms and engage with the peace process so that we can bring peace to Yemen and properly help the Yemeni people to lift themselves out of poverty.
Gill Furniss
The situation in Yemen continues to deteriorate, and the attacks are ever more brutal. Just last week, three children who were out playing football were among 60 people killed when missiles struck Hodeidah and Saada. Does the Minister agree that this demonstrates the importance of re-establishing the group of eminent experts? What fresh efforts does he believe are needed within the UN Security Council to end this terrible conflict?
James Cleverly
The recent loss of life in Yemen, and in the nations surrounding Yemen that have received attacks emanating from the Houthis, is terrible. Ultimately, the best thing we can do as a leading member of the international community and the penholder at the United Nations is to push for peace in Yemen. I have in the past done that directly with the Houthi leadership, and we have done it indirectly through countries in the region that have some degree of influence with the Houthis. We also have these discussions directly with the Government of Yemen and the Governments in the surrounding countries. It will remain a priority for this Government to pursue peace through the United Nations special envoy and others so that we can set that country on a road to recovery and out of the hell that it currently finds itself in.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
We were all horrified by the atrocities of the airstrike on Friday, which led to dozens of deaths and was another horrific incident in this conflict. It adds to one of the world’s greatest humanitarian disasters, with an estimated 20 million Yemenis in need of assistance. As the Minister knows, the Saudi air and sea blockade means that hardly any humanitarian aid is getting through, so I ask him: what influence are the Government using to bring about a peace conference to end the blockade, so that people on the brink of starvation can get the humanitarian aid they need?
James Cleverly
I have in the past spoken both with the Government of Yemen and with countries in the region to ensure that fuel supplies that are needed, both to transport grain and also for grain milling for bread, have been made available, and I am pleased that the UK intervention at those times facilitated the distribution of aid to Yemen. The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the loss of life that has been experienced, and I remind him that the only way to meaningfully reduce the loss of life, both within Yemen and in the nations around it, is for the parties to get to the negotiating table—and that means the Houthis. We will continue to support the United Nations special envoy in his work to bring that about.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
Together with our allies, we are standing up to Russian aggression. We will not tolerate their campaign of hybrid warfare aiming to destabilise democracies across eastern Europe. We will continue to expose Russian disinformation, including attempts to install proxies and puppets. The UK is at the forefront of providing support to Ukraine, with defensive weapons and through economics and trade. Any Russian military incursion would be a massive strategic mistake, with severe costs. The Ukrainians will fight and Putin should beware of an intractable quagmire.
James Sunderland
As talks continue in Vienna on reviving the joint comprehensive plan of action nuclear deal, there are fears that Iran gets ever closer to a nuclear weapon. Will my right hon. Friend please convince the House of what is happening to maintain peace in the middle east?
Elizabeth Truss
This negotiation is urgent, and progress has not been fast enough. We continue to work in close partnership with our allies, but the negotiations are reaching a dangerous impasse. Iran must now choose whether it wants to conclude a deal or be responsible for the collapse of the JCPOA. If the JCPOA collapses, all options are on the table.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Some 9.4 million people are going hungry in northern Ethiopia, airstrikes are killing civilians and the blockade is being used as a political weapon. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), met Abiy Ahmed last week. Did she make it clear that preventing humanitarian access is an abuse of human rights, that airstrikes on refugees are completely incompatible with UK partnership, and that a real dialogue to enable peace must start now and include the Prime Minister’s opponents?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: we need to secure peace in Ethiopia. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs was in Ethiopia and she has been extremely active on the issue. I have also discussed it with the Ethiopian Foreign Minister and urged them to join peace talks.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Minister for Europe (Chris Heaton-Harris)
The world is aware that Russia is on manoeuvres both on Ukraine’s borders and across Belarus. We continually develop our assessment of the situation. I can only repeat what my right hon. and hon. Friends have said about the massive strategic mistake that Russia would make were it to invade Ukraine’s territorial borders.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Asia (Amanda Milling)
Throughout the pandemic our top priority has been to save lives. We firmly believe that the best way to do so is to support the world’s leading scientists. There is no evidence that the intellectual property rights waiver would help to save lives. The TRIPS—trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—waiver proposal would dismantle the international IP framework that helped to produce the vaccines at an unprecedented pace.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
My hon. Friend is right that the war in northern Ethiopia has caused huge suffering, but there are some welcome signs that it may now be possible to move towards peace. I visited Ethiopia last week and met Prime Minister Abiy. I urged him not only to work towards peace talks but to ensure that humanitarian aid flows to those who need it. We in the UK stand ready to support all efforts towards finding peace.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Elizabeth Truss
This is the country where the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was developed. It has been supplied at cost around the world and I have seen it being produced in the Serum Institute in India, as well as in Mexico. The fact is that we have supported the roll-out of vaccines around the world and donated to developing countries.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
Vicky Ford
The Commonwealth is a vibrant and valued network of countries and we are deeply committed to it. Commonwealth nations are crucial friends in the delivery of the Foreign Secretary’s vision of a network of liberty and the need to plant the flag for freedom around the globe. We look forward to hosting the Commonwealth games in Birmingham this summer and to attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kigali in Rwanda soon.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Elizabeth Truss
We are soon to launch the developing countries trading scheme, which will help developing countries to get better access to the UK market. We have also just launched British International Investment, which will help developing countries with their climate change adaptation by supporting their investment.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The Minister for the Middle East, North Africa and North America (James Cleverly)
The UK is proud to be a long-standing—indeed, founding—member of NATO and to consistently meet its 2% target. NATO remains one of the most important institutions for Euro-Atlantic security and it is incredibly important that its future leadership recognises not only traditional threats, as we now see on Ukraine’s borders, but emerging threats such as cyber, space and other realms of conflict.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
James Cleverly
I forgive the hon. Lady for not being a devoted follower of my social media feeds and statements; I have already put out a statement on those demolitions. As I said in response to an earlier question, the UK enjoys an incredibly strong relationship with Israel. That allows us to bring up difficult and sensitive issues such as this, but also enables us to work with Israel on areas of mutual interest and concern, including ultimately a viable two-state solution.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I very strongly welcome the strength and determination of the message that the Foreign Secretary is sending to Mr Putin to deter any possible aggression against Ukraine; it is just right. However, are there any circumstances under which she could foresee British troops being deployed in a combat role, defending Ukraine?
Elizabeth Truss
As the Defence Secretary said, it is unlikely that that would be the circumstance, but we are working very hard to make sure that Ukraine has the defensive weapons that it needs; that it has the training that it needs—we have trained 20,000 Ukrainian personnel—and that it has the support of the international community. We are pushing our allies very hard to make sure that they are offering similar defensive support.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary has concluded a trade deal with Australia, which advantages those who produce their food using animal welfare standards far worse than those met by Cumbrian farmers or British farmers in general. So when will those of us who care about farming and animal welfare standards get a chance to vote on that deal?
Elizabeth Truss
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have faith in Cumbrian farmers, and I believe that they are world-beating, and Cumbrian lamb is world-beating. So I encourage the hon. Gentleman to get behind the new trade deal that we are negotiating—the CPTPP. Why does he not go out to the Asia-Pacific region and promote his farmers, rather than talking them down in the House of Commons?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that I have raised repeatedly the case of Maira Shahbaz, a 14-year-old Christian girl forcibly abducted, raped and forced into a marriage. Will the Minister assure me, given that we give hundreds of millions of pounds in aid to Pakistan, that we are insisting that aid is contingent on reform of the blasphemy laws and making sure that there are no forced conversions in that country?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend will understand why I will not go into specific details of that case. I can assure him that in our bilateral relationships with Pakistan and other countries where we are aid donors, we also ensure that we use that relationship to promote the values not just of tolerance but of protection of religious freedom. That is as true in Pakistan as it is in other areas, and it is an issue that my noble Friend Lord Ahmed raises bilaterally.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
What more evidence does the Foreign Secretary need to take sanctions against General Silva, the chief of the defence in Sri Lanka, to follow the American Government in those sanctions for war crimes?
Amanda Milling
We have regularly engaged with the United States and other partners on issues relating to Sri Lanka. The UK Government keep all evidence and potential designations under the UK global human rights sanctions regime under close review, guided by the objectives of the sanctions regime. We would not normally speculate about future sanctions targets, as to do so would reduce their impact.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Chinese Communist party is expanding its grip over the people of Hong Kong, destroying the freedoms and liberties defended by the British Crown for 100 years. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in condemning China for its flagrant misuse of power and its undermining of the rule of law?
Amanda Milling
We continue to make clear to mainland Chinese and Hong Kong authorities our strong opposition to the national security law, which is being used to curtail freedoms, punish dissent and shrink the space for opposition, free press and civil society. As a co-signatory to the joint declaration, we will continue to stand up for the people of Hong Kong.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
It is good to be back after my brush with covid.
This could not be more topical; this morning we have seen crisis around the world, particularly in the problems on the border with Russia. Let me say, as the Labour Member who has been in the House the longest, that when we have such a crisis, we expect to see the Prime Minister not on the phone or on video calls, but out there visiting, talking, organising and showing leadership—showing that we care and that we lead from the front? Please, knock on No. 10 and get him out of there, and let us hope he does not say, “Crisis? What crisis?”
Elizabeth Truss
We have been leading on the response to Ukraine. Only last night, the Prime Minister was on a call with the President of the United States, the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany. We are showing leadership in providing defensive support to Ukraine and putting in place the toughest economic sanctions in the case of a Russian incursion. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to put his points to the Russian President.
Downing Street Parties: Police Investigation
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to make a statement on the status of the investigation into Downing Street parties following the statement from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
As the House will be aware, earlier today the Metropolitan Police Commissioner confirmed that the Metropolitan Police Service will be investigating alleged breaches of covid-19 regulations within Government. This is a matter for the police, and the House will understand that I am not in a position to comment on the nature or content of the police investigation. I have previously made it clear from the Dispatch Box that the Government recognise, and I recognise, the public anxiety and indignation that it appears as though the people who have been setting the rules may not have been following the rules. I would like to repeat that sentiment today.
That is why the Prime Minister asked for a Cabinet Office investigation to take place. The terms of reference for that investigation, led by the second permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Sue Gray, have been published and laid in the Library of this House. Those terms made it clear that, as with all internal investigations, if during the course of the work any evidence emerges of behaviour that is potentially a criminal offence, the matter will be referred to the police and the Cabinet Office’s work may be paused.
As the House would expect, there is ongoing contact between the Cabinet Office investigation and the Metropolitan Police Service. However, the Cabinet Office investigation will continue its work. I would urge the House to wait for the findings of that investigation and for the police to conclude their work. That is important to allow the work to take place unimpeded and to protect the rights of all involved. I must emphasise that matters relating to adherence to the law are properly a matter for the police to investigate, and the Cabinet Office will liaise with them as appropriate.
Finally, I can confirm that the findings of the investigation will be provided to this honourable House and made public. The House will understand that there is a limit to what I can say, given that this is an ongoing investigation. I also cannot comment on what is now an ongoing police investigation, and therefore I ask that Members of the House let the investigation run its course and do not pre-empt its conclusions.
Angela Rayner
Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker.
Well, well, well: all too soon, the Paymaster General and I find ourselves here once again—and once again, rather than dealing with the cost of living crisis and its impact on families, we are talking about scandals in Downing Street. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can chunter from their positions, but they are allowing this to happen.
For two months, Cabinet Ministers have been working hard to make Sue Gray the most famous woman in Britain. In response to every question asked about the poor conduct, bad behaviour and rule-breaking culture that this Government have overseen, the Ministers have repeatedly told us that Sue Gray is the answer. Now there is a police investigation, and the terms of reference for Sue Gray, set by the Prime Minister himself, are clear:
“if…any evidence emerges of behaviour that is potentially a criminal offence, the matter will be referred to the police”.—[Official Report, 9 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 561.]
So it seems, Mr Speaker, that potential criminality has been found in Downing Street. What a truly damning reflection on our nation’s very highest office.
So I ask the Paymaster General these questions. Given this morning’s announcement, when will the Sue Gray report finally be published? Can the Paymaster General assure the House that the Sue Gray report will be published in full, not just as a summary, and will the accompanying evidence be provided? Can he clarify for the House what Sue Gray and her team will be doing while the police conduct their investigation? Can he tell the House whether the decision to delay the publication of the Sue Gray report was made by the Metropolitan police or the Government? Given this Government’s record on lost phones and missing messages and minutes, can he assure the House that all evidence from the Gray inquiry will be properly held by the Cabinet Office? Can he clarify whether the Chancellor, as a resident of Downing Street, is co-operating fully with the Gray inquiry and the police investigation, and whether he has been interviewed?
Just weeks ago, the Prime Minister told this House, “there was no party”. How does the Paymaster General explain that? I know that across the country, people know enough. They have made up their minds about the Prime Minister. When will his party catch up?
Michael Ellis
I will agree with the right hon. Lady’s first point. Her first point was “Why are we not talking about the cost of living?” Well, the Prime Minister is working on the cost of living right now, and he is working on Russia-Ukraine. The Prime is doing those jobs, and he is focused on those areas.
As for the right hon. Lady’s second point, I think she forgets that the word “potentially” was used. The reality is that no conclusions can be drawn from the fact that the police are investigating the matter. If the right hon. Lady looks at the statement issued by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick, she will see that the commissioner stressed that the fact the Met is investigating does not mean that the result will necessarily be the issuing of fixed penalty notices in every instance and to every person involved; so “potentially” is a key and operative word.
The right hon. Lady wants to jump to conclusions, but she has asked about the details of the investigation, and those are of course matters for the Cabinet Office and for the police. They are not details of which I would be informed. I would not expect to be informed, because the police have independent operational assessment of matters that are before them, and they will conduct the matter as they see fit.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
When Europe stands on the brink of war and there is a cost of living crisis, can we please have a sense of proportion over the Prime Minister’s being given a piece of cake in his own office by his own staff?
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
On Burns Day, it is probably appropriate to start with the line:
“The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men
Gang aft agley”.
Or perhaps it should be a line from that other great Scottish writer, Sir Walter Scott:
“O what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!”
Now that the police are finally involved, I do wonder how much more personal humiliation and indignity the Prime Minister will be prepared to endure. Perhaps more importantly, how much more of this embarrassing circus are his colleagues prepared to tolerate before they act to remove this man from office? This is not going to go away; the wound is not going to heal miraculously by itself. I am sure we all know that there is an awful lot more still to come out.
I ask the Minister: at any time has anyone from the Sue Gray inquiry contacted the Metropolitan police? When did the Cabinet Office first learn about the police investigation? When does he now expect the Sue Gray report to be delivered? Finally, can he assure this House that when it is, it will be delivered in full, will be open and will be completely transparent for every Member of this House to access?
Michael Ellis
The hon. Gentleman asks me questions about the police investigation. I have no knowledge about that—nor would I expect to, nor should I have knowledge about it. He asks about the publication. I have already indicated that the findings of the investigation will be published.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I accept that the Paymaster General may not be able to answer this question now, but will he assure the House that either he or other Ministers will keep the House posted about whether the Prime Minister will be interviewed by the Metropolitan police—either as a witness or as a potential suspect in this criminal investigation?
Michael Ellis
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question but of course the police will conduct the investigation, as they do in any case, entirely at their own discretion. I would not expect to be informed about that, nor would the House expect me to be.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
There have been newspaper reports of Downing Street staff being told to delete evidence of parties from their phones and staff fearing to give evidence to the Sue Gray inquiry for fear that the PM will see it and that there will later be recriminations. Now that there is a police investigation, will the Paymaster General make it clear throughout Whitehall that all evidence must be given to the police? Will he undertake to publish a report and evidence so that we can all see at the end of this affair that that has been done?
Michael Ellis
If I may say so, I think one can draw a conclusion from the fact that in their liaison with the Metropolitan police, the Cabinet Office has, according to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, satisfied her that an investigation should take place. That should give comfort, to those who might otherwise doubt the investigation, that it is a proper and due-process investigation.
As in all cases where due process should be followed in the interests of fairness, it would not be appropriate to presuppose any result of a police investigation—or, for that matter, of an independent Cabinet Office investigation. As I have already said, I would expect the findings to be published in due course.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me that it is a long-standing convention in this House that when there are independent inquiries and investigations, they are allowed to run their course and that prejudgments are not made in this House? Given that that is the case and that it would be advisable for that convention to be carried on, does he also agree that we really need to concentrate on matters that really affect our constituents on a day-to-day basis—cost of living, energy prices and so on—as well as on the fact that 100,000 Russian troops are on the Ukrainian border, which threatens global instability?
Michael Ellis
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the pressing international situation, particularly as regards Ukraine and Russia. I know that the Prime Minister is focused on that matter.
I also understand the anxiety and indignation of many who are frustrated by the reports that have been emanating over the course of many weeks about alleged gatherings in the Downing Street area. The reality of the matter is that the Prime Minister is focused, as he has been focused, on delivering for this country as he has succeeded in delivering vaccines and on the manifesto commitments. He will continue that laser focus.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
It is clear that the Government are now in total meltdown. We have story after story about covid laws being broken in No. 10, revelations about hon. Members having constituency funding threatened by Government Whips, and now a Prime Minister and his staff under police investigation. In the midst of a pandemic and a cost of living crisis and with Europe on the brink of war in Ukraine, we cannot go on with this chaotic Government. Does the Minister accept that the Prime Minister’s authority is in tatters? Will he advise his boss to do the right thing in the national interest and resign?
Michael Ellis
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his advice on propriety, but he will forgive me if I decline to follow it.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that anyone taking a view on the Prime Minister must take into account the fact that he has presided over the most successful vaccination programme in the world, which is taking us out of the pandemic ahead of most other countries in the world?
Michael Ellis
My right hon. Friend is right, and we would be in lockdown now were it not for this Prime Minister.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Is the Prime Minister not simply compounding his previous terrible mistakes by continuing to deny culpability, leading to an unnecessary and expensive police inquiry, when he could do the decent thing and resign?
Michael Ellis
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would expect fairness to apply to all in this country, whether that is to one of his constituents or to one of mine, and I would hope and expect that he would not wish to see unfairness for anyone. What we are doing at the Cabinet Office is co-operating with a police investigation. That will carry on and take its natural course, as police investigations invariably do, in an orderly way, unencumbered by interference from the Executive.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Would the Paymaster General consider the Metropolitan police, or any other police force, looking into the activities of the Leader of the Opposition with his beer party? As far as I can see there is no difference. What does he say to that?
Michael Ellis
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but, of course, police investigations and how they are conducted are operationally independent. I am sure that they will have heard what he said.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Does the Paymaster General not think that it would be a good idea to set up a police special operations unit room in No. 10 Downing Street, because, while the police are looking at this case, they could perhaps look at cash for honours, cash for access, personal protective equipment for pals, paid advocacy, breaking the ministerial code, and all the other general Tory badness?
Michael Ellis
I have to say that a quick Google analysis of the SNP would not be particularly edifying. Despite noises off, this Prime Minister is focused on what matters to the British people and it is right that those matters conclude in an orderly way.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I welcome the investigation. We can see the absolute terror on the faces of the Opposition. For them, this is partygate, but they know that they are up against a Prime Minister and a Government who have brought youth unemployment to its lowest ever level. This Government, led by the Prime Minister, brought us the AstraZeneca vaccine and ensured that we had the most successful booster programme in the world. That is why there is absolute terror on the Opposition Benches that we should focus on policy in this place and on the priorities of the British people. That is why the Opposition are so desperate to land this even as the inquiry is going on.
Michael Ellis
I agree completely. The Prime Minister also welcomes the announcement by the Met police today, because alongside the Sue Gray inquiry, which he set up, we will offer the public the clarity that they need to help draw a line under these events.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
My Middlesbrough constituents have obeyed the rules, done exactly what the Prime Minister demanded of them and abided by the laws that he initiated. Does the Paymaster General not understand that the continued refusal to do the right and decent thing only serves to damage our democracy and tarnish our reputation across the world? That will not be turned around until such time as the Prime Minister goes and brings this shameful business to an end.
Michael Ellis
No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Does the Paymaster General agree that compared with being interviewed under caution for flogging peerages, as Tony Blair was, trying to prosecute a former First Minister of Scotland despite being told that there was no evidence or taking money from Chinese spies, eating a piece of birthday cake is a relatively minor offence?
Michael Ellis
My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully and eloquently.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that the police investigated and intervened on several parties across London on 20 May, can the Paymaster General explain why they did not intervene when enormous amounts of booze were being trundled into No. 10 with enormous amounts of noise? Does that make him fear some sort of fudging of the investigation? Perhaps another police force should intervene.
Michael Ellis
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to criticise the Metropolitan police; I do not think that has the support of the House. I ask him to accept that the position is that the Metropolitan police and the public servants who work in Government work hard, including during a period of major crisis for the country, in the public service. They are devoted to their work and they seek to serve the public in the best way they can. Assumptions ought not to be made of police or civil service impropriety. The matter is subject to investigation and I ask him to accept the default position that persons are innocent unless otherwise proved—that is how it works.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Last night, NATO announced that it was putting troops on standby in response to the situation in Ukraine. In April, gas prices are forecast to rise by more than 50% when the energy price cap lifts. People in Redcar and Cleveland want to move on from the debacle on parties and focus on the real issues. Will the Paymaster General assure me that the Cabinet Office will publish Sue Gray’s report as soon as it can?
Michael Ellis
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s position. I would say that the report of Sue Gray—the findings of that report—will be published as soon as they are available.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) invited us to have a sense of proportion in relation to the matter. I refer him to one of the many emails that I have had from constituents and I ask the Paymaster General what he thinks about it. My constituent said that if he had not followed the covid restrictions, like the Prime Minister:
“I would have driven…to Norfolk to see my mum after she broke her leg and had to stay in a nursing home. I would have taken a trip south to prepare her house…I could have helped cook and clean for her while we found suitable local carers. I would have sung happy birthday to her from the hospital grounds while she recovered from covid she caught from a carer. I could have been closer when she died a few days later, 82 and alone in a ward of strangers.”
What should I say to my constituent? Should I tell him to have a sense of proportion or will the Paymaster General apologise to him and all the other people across the United Kingdom who kept the rules when the Prime Minister and his mates did not?
Michael Ellis
I would invite the hon. and learned Lady to offer her constituent my abject sorrow and condolences for his loss. There is nothing that I can say to bring back that which is lost, but what I can say is that the Prime Minister, in the exercise of his functions over the course of the pandemic, has brought the country out of a dire situation into a situation where we are now leading the world in our arrangements around the pandemic. He will continue to focus on those priorities.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I welcome the Metropolitan police inquiry and express surprise that it was not announced earlier. In the Paymaster General’s previous role as Attorney General, he will have been more familiar than most with the covid-19 regulations and the fixed penalty notices that have been issued. Can he confirm that they are summary offences normally investigated within six months and that the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt?
Michael Ellis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. As he can imagine, I would prefer not to get into the legal position. What I would say is that I expect, as everyone would, the police to conduct their investigation expeditiously and at a time that is, no doubt, in accordance with their own procedures and protocols. He is right to raise the fact that there will be tests—evidence and the burden of proof—and it is always right that a person in this country is innocent unless or until they be proven guilty.
Mr Speaker
I am expecting this to run to about 1.15 pm. We can help each other by speeding through.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
What assessment has been undertaken of the damage that partygate has on our economy and inward investment, and on the trust of the British people in this Government?
Michael Ellis
The hon. Member asks what assessment has been made. I invite the House to note that this Prime Minister held a Cabinet meeting the day after his own mother died, was working just weeks after he was released from intensive care in hospital and has led the world on AstraZeneca and vaccine availability. We would still be in a lockdown situation if it were not for him. I invite her to accept those points as those that really focus the mind.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Given that there are ongoing investigations by Sue Gray and the Metropolitan police at this time, and we await the results, does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that this urgent question is a vexatious waste of everybody’s time?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not questioning my judgment. I am the person who grants urgent questions. I am sure he would like to withdraw the question; it does not need answering.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
One of my constituents, Billie-Jean, got in touch. Billie-Jean was in university accommodation during the pandemic and was fined £100 for having a gathering of 11 people during that time. Billie-Jean says that, while they were being fined and disciplined by the university, the Prime Minister
“was living a lush life of champagne and party nibbles”.
Would the Minister like to apologise to my constituents and everybody else for having done one thing in Downing Street while people in the world outside did quite another?
Michael Ellis
Her constituent, in order to have been fined, would either have had to admit wrongdoing or have been found guilty in a court of law on the evidence before that court. The situation is completely different. No such state of affairs exists as far as No. 10 or the Prime Minister is concerned.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I fought in bloody conflicts in Europe. At the moment, we are seeing hundreds of thousands of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, and could see the bloodiest conflict for generations. We are wasting time here. [Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Speaker. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that every time the Opposition call for our Prime Minister to resign, it only strengthens Putin’s hand and destabilises negotiations?
Michael Ellis
My hon. Friend is quite right to focus on what matters around the world and to the Prime Minister of this country.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Every day, in my constituency of Birkenhead, parents are going hungry so that their children can eat, while elderly people are living in freezing homes because they simply cannot afford to put their heating on. Will the Minister concede that the Government are more interested in their own internal turmoil than in helping those most in need? Will he now join the calls for the Prime Minister to step aside so that we can finally begin to get grips with this Tory cost of living crisis?
Michael Ellis
As I said in this House last time, the Prime Minister is going nowhere.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Last night, the food critic Jay Rayner, quoting the late, great Julia Child, said
“a party without cake is just a meeting. Johnson’s staffers supplied a cake. Ergo, it was a party.”
Does the Paymaster General agree not only with Jay Rayner, but with the late, great Julia Child?
Michael Ellis
If while at work someone eats cake for 10 minutes, I do not think that conclusions can be drawn from that, so the hon. Member is putting the cart before the horse.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
Is it not the case that those on the Opposition Benches are in cahoots with the media to undemocratically depose this Prime Minister not because he is an electoral liability for us, but because he is an electoral liability for them?
Michael Ellis
One has to wonder. The Labour party’s focus on gatherings two years ago, as alleged, rather than on Ukraine and the Russian troops massing on the border of Europe, is quite extraordinary. What we are doing is focusing on the matters that really make a difference for the people of this country, while the police and the Cabinet Office continue their investigations.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Given that it has taken six weeks since the Daily Mirror first broke the story of parties in Downing Street to have a police inquiry, what consideration have the Government given to appointing Pippa Crerar as the commissioner of the Metropolitan police?
Michael Ellis
Well, I have no reason to be concerned about who the Metropolitan Police Commissioner is.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Over the last few days, I have been out and about with my constituents in Great Grimsby, and they are sick and tired of listening to this constant thread. They are very happy that essential workers have gathered together for two years to get us through the pandemic. Will my right hon. and learned Friend send a message to the Prime Minister that they support his policies and want him to carry on getting on with the job?
Michael Ellis
I will gladly send the Prime Minister that message. In fact, my hon. Friend’s message is very similar to those that the Prime Minister is hearing from colleagues around the House, and that is the focus that matters.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Does the Minister really think that it is in the interests of our country—our country, not the Prime Minister—that the Prime Minister remains at the helm, giving public health advice to the people of Newcastle and security reassurances to the people of Ukraine, while mired in scandal and facing criminal investigations?
Michael Ellis
I do, passionately. I think that the Prime Minister is the best leader for this country, and he would bring to shame any leader that the Labour party might put forward for this country. The Prime Minister knows what matters and focuses on the matters that are important to the British people. This investigation is also important, but it is being conducted by the Cabinet Office and the Metropolitan police. We recognise the upset that has been caused by these allegations, which are being properly investigated.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I know that I myself, colleagues and constituents were shocked by the alleged lockdown rule breaking by none other than the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). Does the Minister agree that there can be no hypocrisy and that all sides need to be investigated—after all, those in glass houses should not throw beer bottles?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure that “hypocrisy” was not aimed at an individual Member—surely not. I think that was badly phrased and I will let it go.
Michael Ellis
Nothing in the law forbade people who were legitimately at work from having a 10-minute coffee break in between meetings, and I am sure that people across the country did that, whether they ate cake with it or not. The reality of the matter is that my hon. Friend’s point is completely accurate.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Home Affairs Committee has been looking into the consistency of enforcement of covid regulations, because we are well aware that failure to enforce consistently can erode public trust. The Committee will have an opportunity to question the Metropolitan Police Commissioner soon. However, as the police have primary responsibility for criminal investigations in this country, does the Minister think that it would have been much better to pass this on to the Metropolitan police as soon as these allegations came to light, and that we would now be concluding that Metropolitan police investigation and he would have to stop coming to this House to defend the Prime Minister?
Michael Ellis
I know that the right hon. Lady is a very fair Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, and she will acknowledge that the police have their job to do. It is not a matter for the Government or the Executive to refer matters. That has been done by the Cabinet Office, independently, as part of its investigation. As to the length of the police investigation, we have no idea how long it will be.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
It is clearly correct that the police should investigate any suspicions of breaches of the law, regardless of who may be involved. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure this House and the country that Sue Gray is being left to conduct her investigation independently and freely, and that there are no barriers to her passing on to the police any relevant information she may find on any potential rule breaking?
Michael Ellis
Yes, I can confirm that. The fact the Cabinet Office has passed matters to the Metropolitan police is proved by today’s news.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Will the Minister explain to his less quick-witted colleagues that the claimed good works on covid are no excuse for breaking the law?
Michael Ellis
No one is proved to have done what the hon. Member alleges.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
It is absolutely right for there to be a full investigation into these matters, just as it was right for the police to investigate the cash for honours scandal under the Blair Government. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that the police will, of course, be given full co-operation on these matters, just as the Cabinet Office investigation has been?
Michael Ellis
I can assure my hon. Friend that full co-operation will be accorded to the police as and if they ask for it.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
It is quite clear that, even after this, the Prime Minister does not want to leave No. 10 Downing Street, but do we not face the possibility that the UK’s PM might eventually be leaving No. 10 Downing Street in police handcuffs?
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
On 8 December the Prime Minister told this House “there was no party”. Paragraph 1.3 of the “Ministerial Code” says that anyone who knowingly misleads the House will be expected to resign, so why is the Prime Minister still in his job?
Michael Ellis
If a group of people take cake for 10 minutes while at work, everyone is permitted a reasonable break as part of their working day. That is one possible interpretation. Ten minutes of eating cake and wishing someone a happy birthday would not a party make, but it is a matter for police investigation, and that is what is now happening.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Paymaster General for his responses to these questions. It seems like there are new reports of suspected lockdown breaches each day now. I am pleased, however, that the Metropolitan police’s investigation is under way. Will he confirm that any and all findings from these investigations will be disclosed to the media for public reassurance, that this will be the case for all reports of potential breaches that may yet come before Sue Gray’s investigation is concluded and that justice will be done?
Michael Ellis
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the findings of Sue Gray’s report will be put before this House.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Once again, the Paymaster General has been forced to come to the Dispatch Box to defend the indefensible, and no one is buying it. Honesty, transparency and leadership should be at the heart of this country’s Government, but they are severely lacking. Will the Prime Minister now come to this House to set the record straight and tell us exactly what gatherings and parties he attended at Downing Street? Or better yet, will he just resign?
Michael Ellis
I know the hon. Lady wishes to make a political point, and it is kind of her to focus on my comfort, but I am not forced to do anything. I am here because I know the Prime Minister is entitled to the same justice as anyone else. It is unedifying to see the Opposition making party political points over this matter. The focus of this Government is on the primary concerns of the cost of living, employment, the economy and the situation in Ukraine and Russia, while the police and the Cabinet Office conclude their investigations.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The police were asked to enforce covid rules across the country and faced difficult challenges in doing so to keep us all safe, issuing tens of thousands of fines to people who broke the rules—even those gathering for birthdays. Does the Minister believe that the Prime Minister is above the law? My constituents are asking why these events took place, disregarding the rules. I say to Conservative Members who have attacked this business that these matters do concern our constituents—they do.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Paymaster General does not want to speak about the specifics of the investigation. So, for all the dodgy coronavirus contracts, the cash for honours for the Tories, the stated intention to break international law, illegally proroguing Parliament and the many other crimes and misdemeanours of this Government, does he find it a tad ironic that it is the parties in which they demonstrated their contempt for the public that finally prompted the police to investigate?
Michael Ellis
If there is anything ironic, it is the Scottish National party.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I remind the Minister that it started with a joke about a fictional party during a dummy press conference. Then there was the faux outrage from the Prime Minister, who was angry about that joke. All the while, there were parties—lots of them—and he was at some of them. There is a mountain of evidence of truth twisting, rule bending and lawbreaking, and it lands at the feet of the man at the top. Why is the Minister still defending the indefensible?
Michael Ellis
I see that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be judge, jury and executioner, but no one in this House would give him that position. What matters is justice—justice for all—and that will apply in this case as it does in any other.
Ukraine
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
A few weeks ago, I commissioned an independent inquiry into a series of events in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office as well as some other Whitehall Departments that may have constituted potential breaches of the covid regulations. That process has, quite properly, involved sharing information continuously with the Metropolitan police, so I welcome the Met’s decision to conduct its own investigation because I believe that will help to give the public the clarity they need and help to draw a line under matters. But I reassure the House and the country that I and the whole Government are focused 100% on dealing with the people’s priorities, including the UK’s leading role in protecting freedom around the world.
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the United Kingdom’s response to the situation in Ukraine. This winter, we have witnessed a spectacle that we hoped had been banished from our continent: a large and powerful country massing troops and tanks on the border of a neighbour with the obvious threat of invading. Russia has, of course, already attacked Ukraine, illegally annexing 10,000 square miles of her territory in 2014 and igniting a war in the Donbass region. Ukraine has scarcely known a day of peace ever since. Now, Ukraine faces the danger of a renewed invasion and, this time, the force arrayed on Ukraine’s frontier comprises over 100,000 troops—far bigger than anything that Russia has deployed against her before. If the worst happens and the destructive firepower of the Russian army were to engulf Ukraine’s towns and cities, I shudder to contemplate the tragedy that would ensue.
Ukrainians have every moral and legal right to defend their country, and I believe that their resistance would be dogged and tenacious and the bloodshed comparable to the first war in Chechnya, or Bosnia, or any other conflict that Europe has endured since 1945. No one would gain from such a catastrophe. Russia would create a wasteland in a country that, as she continuously reminds us, is composed of fellow Slavs, and Russia would never be able to call it peace.
For months, Britain has worked in lockstep with the United States and our allies across Europe to avoid such a disaster. We have sought to combine dialogue with deterrence, emphasising how a united western alliance would exact a forbidding price for any Russian incursion into Ukraine, including by imposing heavy economic sanctions. At the same time we stand ready, as we always have, to address any legitimate Russian concerns through honest diplomacy.
On 13 December, I spoke to President Putin, and I stressed that NATO had no thought of encircling or otherwise threatening his country, and that Russia enjoyed as much right as any other state to live in peace and security. But, as I said to him, Ukraine also enjoys an equal and symmetrical right to that of Russia, and I said that any attack on his neighbour would be followed by tougher sanctions against Russia, further steps to help Ukraine defend herself and an increased NATO presence to protect our allies on NATO’s eastern flank. The truth is that Russia’s goal is to keep NATO forces away from her borders, and if that is Russia’s goal, then invading Ukraine could scarcely be more counterproductive.
My right hon. Friends the Foreign and Defence Secretaries have both conveyed the same message to President Putin, and I am of course prepared and ready to speak to him again. Meanwhile, the American deputy Secretary of State met her Russian counterpart in Geneva on 10 January, and the NATO-Russia Council gathered two days later, as the House knows. The American Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, met the Russian Foreign Minister last Friday, and the US Administration have confirmed President Biden’s willingness to have another meeting with President Putin, continuing the bilateral dialogue they began last year.
But credible deterrence is the other side of the coin. Last night, I held a virtual meeting with President Biden, President Macron, Chancellor Scholz, President Duda, Prime Minister Draghi, Secretary-General Stoltenberg, President Michel and President von der Leyen. We agreed that we would respond in unison to any Russian attack on Ukraine—in unison—by imposing co-ordinated and severe economic sanctions heavier than anything we have done before against Russia, and we agreed on the necessity of finalising these measures as swiftly as possible in order to maximise their deterrent effect.
We in the UK will not hesitate to toughen our national sanctions against Russia in response to whatever President Putin may do, and the House will soon hear more on this from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We have already declassified compelling intelligence exposing Russian intent to install a puppet regime in Ukraine, and we will continue to disclose any Russian use of cyber-attacks, false flag operations or disinformation.
Amid all these pressures, Ukraine asks for nothing except to be allowed to live in peace and to seek her own alliances, as every sovereign country has a right to do. Last week, the UK acted to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to defend her soil by supplying anti-armour missiles and deploying a small training team of British personnel, in addition to the work of Operation Orbital, which, as the House will know, has trained 21,000 Ukrainian troops since 2015. Yesterday, we took the responsible precaution of temporarily withdrawing some staff and dependants from the British embassy in Kyiv, though I emphasise that the embassy remains open and will continue to provide consular assistance for British nationals in Ukraine, and I am particularly grateful for the dedication of our ambassador in Kyiv, Melinda Simmons.
I commend our NATO allies for the steps they have taken and are taking to protect the eastern flank of the alliance. Denmark is sending a frigate to the Baltic and deploying four F-16s to Lithuania to join NATO’s long-standing air policing mission; France has expressed its readiness to send troops to Romania under NATO command; and the United States has raised the alert level of 8,500 combat troops, preparing to deploy them in Europe at short notice. The British Army leads the NATO battlegroup in Estonia, and if Russia invades Ukraine we would look to contribute to any new NATO deployments to protect our allies in Europe.
In every contact with Russia, the UK and our allies have stressed our unity and our adherence to vital points of principle. We cannot bargain away the vision of a Europe whole and free that emerged in those amazing years from 1989 to 1991, healing the division of our continent by the iron curtain. We will not reopen that divide by agreeing to overturn the European security order because Russia has placed a gun to Ukraine’s head, nor can we accept the doctrine implicit in Russian proposals that all states are sovereign but some are more sovereign than others.
The draft treaty published by Russia in December would divide our continent once again between free nations and countries whose foreign and defence policies are explicitly constrained by the Kremlin in ways that Russia would never accept for herself. More than half of Europe, including a dozen or more members of NATO and of the European Union, would be only partially sovereign and required to seek the Kremlin’s approval before inviting any military personnel from NATO countries on to their soil. The Czech Republic—at the very heart of Europe, hundreds of miles from Russia—would have to ask the Kremlin for permission if she wanted to invite a company of German infantry to join an exercise or even to help with flood defences.
There is nothing new about large and powerful nations using the threat of brute force to terrify reasonable people into giving way to otherwise completely unacceptable demands, but if President Putin were to choose the path of bloodshed and destruction, he must realise that it would be both tragic and futile. Nor should we allow him to believe that he could easily take some smaller portion of Ukraine to salami-slice, because the resistance will be ferocious.
Anyone who has been to Kyiv, as I have, and has stood by the wall of remembrance and studied the portraits of nearly 4,500 Ukrainians who have died in defence of their country since 2014—the total death toll stands in excess of 14,000—will know that the Ukrainians are determined to fight and have become steadily more skilled at guerrilla warfare. If Russia pursues this path, many Russian mothers’ sons will not be coming home. The response in the international community would be the same and the pain that will be inflicted on the Russian economy will be the same.
When I spoke to President Putin, I reminded him that at crucial moments in history, Britain and Russia have stood together. The only reason why both our countries are permanent members of the UN Security Council is the heroism of Soviet soldiers in the struggle against fascism, side by side with ourselves. I believe that all Russia’s fears could yet be allayed and we could find a path to mutual security through patient and principled diplomacy, provided that President Putin avoids the trap of starting a terrible war—a war that I believe would earn and deserve the condemnation of history. I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and am grateful to the Defence Secretary for keeping the Opposition informed of developments throughout the crisis.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, Britain, Russia and the United States made a solemn agreement with Ukraine: in exchange for its giving up nuclear powers and weapons, Ukraine’s security was to be guaranteed and its independence respected. Ukraine has kept its end of the deal; President Putin has not. His Russia has annexed Crimea, has supported separatist conflict in Donbass and has now amassed more than 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s borders.
These are repeated and unjustifiable acts of aggression, so Labour stands resolute in our support of Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. That was made clear when our shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and our shadow Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), visited Kyiv a fortnight ago, and I made it clear to the Ukrainian ambassador when I met him last week.
This is not just a local dispute on the other side of the continent. It is an attempt by President Putin to turn back the clock, to re-establish Russian force as a means of dominance over parts of eastern Europe, and it is a direct threat to the anti-imperialist principle that sovereign nations are free to choose their own allies and their own way of life.
That is why it is crucial that we in this House are united in opposing Russian aggression. Let me be clear: the Labour party supports the steps that the Government have taken to bolster Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. We support international efforts to deter Russia from further aggression and the vital diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the situation.
Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the UK and our partners will be resolute in our defence of Ukraine’s sovereignty and the security of our NATO allies? For too long, the implicit message to Moscow has been that President Putin can do what he likes and the west will do little to respond. We must now change course and show Russia that any further aggression will result in severe, real-world consequences. For Britain and our allies, that will mean taking tough decisions. It will not be easy.
Widespread and hard-hitting sanctions must include cutting Russia’s access to the international financial system. Europe’s overreliance on Russian energy supplies is well documented and simply must be addressed. In Britain, we have failed to rid our economic and political systems of the ill-gotten money used to support the Putin regime. If we take our obligations to global security seriously, we cannot go on allowing ourselves to be the world’s laundromat for illicit finance.
Labour has a four-point plan. [Interruption.] Really? First, we must reform Companies House to crack down on shell companies. Secondly, we must have a register of overseas entities to lift the veil on who owns property and assets in the UK. Thirdly, we need tougher regulation of political donations. Finally, we should implement the recommendations of the cross-party Russia report to bolster national security. Will the Prime Minister support those measures to rid the UK of the loot of the corrupt Russian elite? We cannot stand up to Russian aggression abroad while facilitating Russian corruption at home.
After the chemical attacks in Salisbury, after the annexation of Crimea and now the threat of invasion in Ukraine, it is time to send a simple, clear and united message. We support Ukraine’s sovereign right to choose her own destiny. We will stand with the Ukrainian people in the face of President Putin’s threats. His aggression will come at a high price for himself and his regime.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I am glad that he supports the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. He is right to ask about the assurances that this country has given to Ukraine. I have repeatedly told Volodymyr Zelensky, as I told his predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, many times, that we stand four-square behind the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine and we always will. We have a hard-hitting package of sanctions ready to go. It would be fair to say that we want to see our European friends ready to deploy that package as soon as there were any incursion at all by Russia into Ukraine.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks what we are doing to track down Russian money in this country and in the City. As he knows, we are bringing forward measures for a register of beneficial interests. I do not think that any country in the world has taken tougher action against the Putin regime. It is this Government who brought in Magnitsky sanctions against all those involved in the poisoning of Alexei Navalny. It is this Government who got the world together—got 28 countries together—to protest against the poisoning in Salisbury. The world responded to that British lead by collectively expelling 153 diplomats around the world.
I am grateful for the general tenor of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments and his support for NATO—belated though it may be from the Opposition Benches. I am grateful for it now. What I can tell him is that that same leadership in assembling a response to Russian aggression is being shown by the UK now, and it is absolutely vital that the west is united now, because our unity now will be much more effective in deterring any Russian aggression. That is what this Government will be pursuing in the days ahead.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
As the Prime Minister articulates, the west is now regrouping, but the penny is also dropping: the threat of sanctions will not deter the Russian aggression, and a total or even partial invasion will have severe economic and security consequences felt right across Europe and beyond. Ukraine’s grain exports to Africa will be affected, global gas prices will be impacted and skyrocket, and where might an emboldened Russia turn to next? I ask the Government to liaise with the United States and consider a simpler and more effective option to deter this invasion by belatedly answering Ukraine’s call for help. It is not too late to mobilise a sizeable NATO presence in Ukraine, utilising the superior hard power that the alliance possesses to make Putin think twice about invading another European democracy.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend very much and I know that, emotionally, many people will share his view. He knows a great deal about Ukraine and the issues that that country faces. Of course, instinctively, many people would yearn to send active physical support in the form of NATO troops to Ukraine. I have to tell him that I do not believe that to be a likely prospect in the near term. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but what we can do—and what we are doing—is send troops to support Ukraine. I have mentioned the training operations that we are conducting under Operation Orbital, as we have for the past six or seven years, training 21,000 Ukrainian troops. Of course we are now sending defensive weaponry, which I think is entirely appropriate. We have sent 2,000 anti-tank weapons to the Ukrainians and we join the Americans in that effort; as my right hon. Friend knows, the Americans have sent about $650 million-worth of military assistance to Ukraine. That is the vital thing to do to stiffen Ukrainian resistance, but the real deterrent right now is that package of economic sanctions. That is what will bite; that is what will hurt Putin; and that, I hope, is what will deter him.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and join the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), in congratulating the Defence Secretary on making sure throughout that we have been kept informed of developments; it is most appreciated. It is important that all of us in this House stand together in solidarity with our friends in Ukraine in defence of their sovereignty.
We on the Scottish National party Benches share the deep concern over the escalation of tension, the prospect of military aggression and the threat to Ukraine’s sovereignty. Russia’s actions in recent weeks and months of amassing troops, tanks and heavy military equipment near the border of Ukraine are unacceptable. We continue to support, above all, measures to resolve the crisis through diplomacy, so will the Prime Minister provide reassurance that work to deliver a peaceful and diplomatic outcome remains this Government’s main priority? The threat of bloodshed on European soil is what is at stake.
We stand with the people of Ukraine and understand the fears and concerns of Ukrainians across these islands, many of whom live in the UK but have family in Ukraine. The bedrock of NATO as a defensive alliance remains the solidarity between its member states, and it is clear that we need that united alliance. It is becoming increasingly apparent that, should an incursion occur, what will be required is a tougher package of sanctions that are robust and have real, measurable impact.
We on the SNP Benches have called for co-ordinated economic sanctions against the Putin regime and the banning of Russia from the SWIFT—the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication—banking system. Can that be confirmed as on the table today? The measures must also include tougher action on Russian money laundering and include action by the Treasury to tackle the ongoing and improper use of Scottish limited partnerships, which have been used to funnel millions of pounds in dirty money. Without that, our credibility will lessen.
The Prime Minister raised the issue of Magnitsky, and let me say to him that it was cross-party support that led to these sanctions. He may well remember the meeting I had with him when he was Foreign Secretary to make sure that we worked collectively to deal with those threats. Will he also commit to introducing a transparent system of company registration and proper reform of Companies House?
Meanwhile, we all stand solidly with the people of Ukraine and urge the Government to continue efforts for diplomacy, as long as that is possible.
The Prime Minister
Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman and echo many of his sentiments. He is completely right to say that we should pursue every possible diplomatic avenue, in every appropriate forum; whether it is the NATO-Russia Council, the UN, the OSCE, the G7 or the Normandy Format, we must follow every avenue. He is right to press on what we are doing to track “dirty Russian money”, for want of a better expression. That is why we have the unexplained wealth orders and why we are bringing in measures to have a register of beneficial interests.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about SWIFT and financial transactions across the world, and there is no doubt that that would be a very potent weapon. I am afraid it can only really be deployed with the assistance of the United States—though we are in discussions about that.
The House needs to understand that one of the big issues we all face in dealing with Ukraine and with Russia is the heavy dependence, of our European friends in particular, on Russian gas. It was clear in the conversations last night that in this era of high gas prices we are bumping up against that reality. The job of our diplomacy now is to persuade and encourage our friends to go as far as they can to sort this out and to come up with a tough package of economic sanctions, because that is what the situation requires.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will recall that when he was Foreign Secretary the Foreign Affairs Committee published a report entitled “Moscow’s Gold”, which was about dirty Russian money flowing through our system and the call for us to have various registers not only of ownership but of foreign agents operating within our system. We have had a reminder only a week ago of why that is so important. Will he tell me what he is doing to work with partners across Europe to make sure that we stand together and do not just act as a voice outside the Kremlin, but make sure that Putin’s acolytes, who have profited from his kleptocratic regime, act as voices inside the Kremlin telling him what he is risking? The impressive work that the Defence Secretary has done in helping to support our Ukrainian friends could be undermined if the Kremlin does not listen to the very real danger it faces today.
The Prime Minister
It is absolutely right that the best way to get attention in the Kremlin and in Moscow generally is to have sanctions that are directed at the individual—like Magnitsky sanctions, for instance; that is what we will be coming forward with—as well as sanctions directed at companies that are of crucial strategic Russian interest.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
In Kyiv and in Kramatorsk last week, we met politicians and community leaders who will not only be worrying for the future of their country, but be fearful for their own lives. I have been saying for a very long time that the arguments that President Putin uses about Russian speakers in Ukraine are exactly the same as Adolf Hitler advanced over the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia in the 1930s. I agree with the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), that we need to see full implementation of the “Moscow’s Gold” report. I am sure there will be other sanctions coming—I do not quite understand why we have sanctioned only 25% of the people the American Government have already sanctioned. This House will stand ready alongside the Prime Minister if he needs, for instance, to introduce further legislation to seize Russian assets in the UK and to make sure that the unexplained wealth orders, which have worked in only three cases in the past four years, actually have an effect. We stand ready to stand by the Ukrainian people.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much, and I think he is completely right in his analysis of Russian, and certainly Putin’s, intentions towards Ukraine. I am sure he has read the 5,000-word essay by Vladimir Putin about Ukraine and the origins of Russia. It is clear what the psychological and emotional wellsprings of his thinking are.
I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says on sanctions. As he knows, we are bringing forward a statutory instrument greatly to toughen up our ability to sanction people, and I hope he will support it.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
President Putin has not even waited for the gas to start flowing through the Nord Stream 2 pipeline before exploiting the stranglehold that he has been building on the German economy. My right hon. Friend has already indicated that it may be difficult for Germany to impose severe sanctions against Russia if this invasion goes ahead, so does he not agree that it is vital from our security point of view that anyone with strong Russian or communist Chinese links should be kept well away from our own critical national infrastructure?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is completely right. That is why we brought in measures to protect our national security and our critical national infrastructure, and to ensure that we are able to stop investment that we think would be detrimental to our national security. I am afraid that he is also right about the German dependence on Russian gas. We have to be respectful of this, but the simple fact is that about 3% the UK’s gas supplies come from Russia, whereas about 36% of German energy needs come from Russian gas. Germany is in a very different position from us, and its sacrifice is potentially very large. We must hope that in the interest of peace it is willing to make that sacrifice.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. It is right that we stand united across the House to support Ukraine and to stand against Russian aggression, which we should remember has already resulted in over 13,000 casualties in the last few years. The Prime Minister has rightly talked about gas being an issue, particularly in Germany but also across central and eastern Europe. It could also impact this country, with the threat of increased gas prices at a time when families are already facing rocketing heating bills. Could I ask him to take further action on energy, as I did during the Russian invasion of Crimea? Alongside all the measures he rightly proposed in his statement, will he convene a summit of the G7 Energy Ministers, as we had back in 2014, to look at how we can improve short-term and medium-term energy security, protect consumers in this country and elsewhere against rocketing gas prices and give ourselves a much stronger hand in the face of Putin’s aggression?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. By the way, I think that much of the work he did on renewables when he was in office was prescient and valuable for this country, and it has put us in a stronger position to resist the Russian gas blackmail. As I told the House just now, only 3% of our gas supplies come from Russia, but he is right about the spike in prices, which is why we are working together with President Biden and other colleagues to see what we can do to increase the supply of gas both to Europe and of course to this country.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
If Russia invades Ukraine, does my right hon. Friend see the potential, as I do, for it to lead to a flood of refugees crossing from Ukraine into the EU? Poland, Romania and Slovakia could see massive flows of displaced people. Indeed, it could be part of Putin’s thinking that the EU could be so distracted and full of infighting over refugees that it could not respond militarily. What does my right hon. Friend think the response from Brussels would be? Maybe the Poles should have a bus station at the border crossing ready to take people to Germany and France, especially as it is Berlin and Paris that have watered down any NATO response thus far. If this massive flow of refugees happens, it may well be the end of the EU.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is making a valuable point, because we have seen only recently how refugees from Belarus have been used as tools of political warfare. We have to be conscious of the potential for the Kremlin to trigger exactly the kind of refugee crisis he describes.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and agree with him that should Putin invade Ukraine, tough sanctions will be necessary. However, the Putin regime exists because it floats on, and relies on, an ocean of illegal and illicit finance, much of which flows through the City of London. The Prime Minister has just said that the UK has the strongest laws against illicit money; I am sorry, but that is just not true. He should look at what our allies in the United States are doing. It is now time to attack what is happening, because that is the way to cripple this regime. Can the Prime Minister tell me when he will implement the recommendations of the Russia report? As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has said, if that requires us to pass emergency legislation, let us do it.
The Prime Minister
Let me repeat what I said earlier. The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that it is vital to guard against Russian dirty moneys flowing through the world, and he is right in his analysis of the way the kleptocracy works. That is why we have the unexplained wealth orders, why we are introducing a register of beneficial interests, and why we have a new corporate offence of failure to prevent tax evasion. We will and we do come down very hard on all those who are exploiting the City of London, or anywhere else, to wash dirty money.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s strong underlining of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Back in November, there was no unanimity across Europe, and increasingly even across the Atlantic, on the issue of Ukraine. That has changed over the last few months through the good offices of the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary.
The Prime Minister mentioned his conversation last night with Chancellor Olaf Scholz. The Germans are a critical part of all this, in respect of both diplomacy and defence. They are a key international partner and ally. We can do it with the Americans and we can do it with others, but it will be far more effective if we do it with the Germans.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is completely right. I want to say a word or two in praise of Olaf Scholz, because it was clear from our conversation last night—as I have said to the House—how difficult this is for Germany. No one should be in any doubt about that. However, it was also clear that the new German Chancellor is determined to stand with the rest of the west to maintain a united front. Among other things, Germany has made it plain that Nord Stream 2 cannot go ahead—Germany cannot take part in it—if there is a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is right to say that western unity is key. Can he therefore explain why the UK began withdrawing some of our diplomats from Kyiv this week, unlike most of the rest of NATO?
The Prime Minister
We are actually in lockstep with the United States, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have kept at least 30 of our diplomats in Kyiv, including Melinda Simmons, our outstanding ambassador. The UK presence continues to be very strong there, but those are sensible precautionary steps.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary on forming a very robust leadership with NATO and our European allies, and with the United States. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that right now we are facing an even wider threat? It is Ukraine today, but the powers of dictatorship have watched as we did nothing about Georgia, Crimea and South Ossetia, and they have been encouraged. Even now China is looking at Taiwan, watching to see what our reaction will be. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that we have to get our allies to recognise that we must never put ourselves in the position, when it comes to energy, of being dependent on these terrible regimes for our future? We need to get security into our energy now.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is completely right in what he says about the need for us to guarantee the independence of our energy—that is why it is so vital that we are building our wind power and other renewables so fast—but he is also right in his analysis of what is happening. What Putin basically wants is to go back to the Yalta system of spheres of influence. It is not just Ukraine that he has his eye on. Therefore, this moment now matters for the whole geometry and security architecture of Europe, and we must stand firm.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Short, concise questions please, because I will be finishing this statement at 20 past 2.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The military reality is that President Putin knows that if he invades he will not be facing NATO troops, and therefore the sanctions that we put in place have to be the strongest possible. Is the Prime Minister not concerned, given the answer he just gave about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and the fact that discussions are still continuing about exclusion from the SWIFT system, that we are not demonstrating determined, united resolve at the very moment when we need the credible threat of strong sanctions to try and deter President Putin from invading Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very important point. I think actually we are making a huge amount of progress. I want to thank my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary for the work that they are doing, because I think we are bringing together the west on a very tough package, and that is what we need.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I remind the House that we do actually guarantee the sovereignty of Ukraine, having signed the Budapest memorandum in 1994, along with the United States and Russia, and I think later France, and even China. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we really economically and financially strangle Russia with sanctions, Russia could well become bankrupt, and that alone might be something to cause Mr Putin to blink before he gives agreement to using military power and turning it into military force?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is completely right that we have the potential—the potential—to do very serious economic damage to Russia. What we have to make sure of, as everybody said on the call last night, is that we do not inflict damage on the western economies just as people are suffering in particular from high gas prices. That is what we have got to do. Do not forget, it is quite right to say that 41% of Russia’s GDP comes from oil and gas.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The truth about unexplained wealth orders is that only a handful of them have been issued, and that the Registration of Overseas Entities Bill has now been waiting for four years for action. So when the Finance (No. 2) Bill returns to this House, will the Government bring forward measures to tighten up on the flow of dirty Russian money in the UK—or is the truth really that he is perfectly content with that because so much of it appears to end up in Tory party coffers?
The Prime Minister
No, we do not accept foreign donations, as the hon. Lady knows very well. What we will do is bring forward targeted sanctions, which I think are the most effective way of doing it, targeting the sanctions at the personalities that surround President Putin and making them understand the price that they will pay.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
There is no public appetite for using UK combat troops in Ukraine—absolutely none—but we do have other tools in our toolbox. Is the Prime Minister contemplating using the full-spectrum approach to cyber, including offensive cyber, that he talked about in March in connection with the integrated review?
The Prime Minister
Yes. The National Cyber Security Centre is indeed offering help to Ukraine for precisely that purpose. Russian cyber-attacks, as the House knows, can be extremely damaging and we can do a lot to help.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Government’s position is that sanctions will be deployed against Russia if there is an incursion, but would the Government consider deploying some sanctions now, as a clear signal to Russia, and saying that if President Putin stands down his troops and withdraws his forces, further sanctions will not be deployed? Would that not be a more effective sequencing of the process?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful argument. As I have said, we already have Magnitsky sanctions in place on the Russian regime, sanctions in response to the seizure of Crimea and Sevastopol already in place—a wide variety of sanctions. I think what we need to do, if I may say so, is build up an instant, automatic package of western sanctions that will come in automatically in the event of a single toecap of a Russian incursion into more of Ukraine.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I welcome the robust sentiment behind my right hon. Friend’s statement. It is important that the unity that exists across this House is expressed in opposition to Putin if we are to make that a reality. My right hon. Friend mentioned Bosnia in his opening remarks, and he will be aware of the sabre rattling in Republika Srpska, encouraged by Russia. He will also be aware that there is still occupied territory in Moldova. Can he reassure me that these areas are also under discussion with the allies?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The crisis around Ukraine will be replayed across the whole map of eastern Europe if we fail now, and if we do not stand up to Putin. She is entirely right in what she says about the Balkans.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is not just Ukraine; we have military forces in Estonia, which is a member of NATO and a true friend of the UK. The Prime Minister said that if Russia invades Ukraine, we will bolster up our NATO allies. Should we not have more forces in Estonia now?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I have been to see the 850 troops in Tapa, as I am sure he has. They do a fantastic job in Estonia. We are looking potentially to increase our presence in the NATO south-eastern flank as well.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, which puts the United Kingdom at the forefront of the response to President Putin’s monstrous military intimidation. Will my right hon. Friend personally pledge himself to the defence of the new democracies of eastern Europe, who suffered under the Soviet yoke for so long and still want to be free? Will he acknowledge that this change must happen anyway, whether or not the invasion takes place? We must make sure that we are prepared in a new cold war against this kind of intimidation until the Russian regime is removed.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, and I know that he speaks for many friends and many good allies in eastern Europe. In Poland, in the Czech Republic and in the Baltic states there are people who would precisely echo his sentiments, and that is why we have to stand strong and united today for Ukraine.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Prime Minister describes Ukraine and Russia as equal parties, and we know he likes a party. He also said that
“Ukraine has scarcely known a day of peace”
since the 2014 Russian invasion and illegal annexation. Indeed, in December there were 128 shellings of Ukrainians in Donetsk, and three Ukrainian soldiers have been murdered by Russian-backed forces since January. The question is why the Prime Minister has not acted sooner, and why is he even now saying we must wait for full-scale invasion before further sanctions—including on access to SWIFT—and the “Moscow’s Gold” report recommendations are implemented? Why wait?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman must have missed what I already said. We already have a very wide package of sanctions in place since the Russian incursion of 2014. We have personal sanctions and other sanctions for what the Russians did in Crimea and Sevastopol. What we are going to do now is to ratchet those sanctions up very considerably. I am afraid he is not right in what he says about abandoning Ukraine since 2014. With Operation Orbital, the UK has been out there in the front, helping to train 21,000 Ukrainian troops since 2015.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Prime Minister will know that Ukraine is not a full member of NATO, but may I ask him to comment on the feasibility of direct military action by NATO, notwithstanding that article 5 does not apply?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend very much, and I go back to the answer I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). I know that, emotionally, many people will want to commit NATO troops to the defence of Ukraine. We have UK troops there now, and members of the Ranger Regiment are going to supplement those we already have.
I have to say that no member of NATO is currently willing to deploy in Ukraine in large numbers to fight Russian aggression in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. Indeed, we have to beware of doing things that would constitute a pretext for Putin to invade. We have to calculate and calibrate what we do very carefully, and I think that the right approach is to build a strong package of economic sanctions, continue to supply defensive weaponry and do all the other things that we are doing.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The Prime Minister said that we have already declassified compelling intelligence exposing Russian intent and that
“we will continue to disclose any Russian use of…false flag operations or disinformation.”
How much of that declassified information will be made fully public so as to blunt or halt the spread of Russian disinformation by letting the people who see it know that it is false before they decide to press the “share” or “send” button?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. It is very important that people in Ukraine and around the world should be able to trust the information that we are giving out. I have no doubt that the intelligence that we shared about the coup attempt—or the people conspiring against the regime—in Kyiv was right, but we will divulge as much of our sourcing as we can without compromising our intelligence sources.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Naturally, we are all alarmed and share concerns at the risks that the people of Ukraine face but we take confidence from the Prime Minister’s statement and actions in helping to co-ordinate the western response. Does my right hon. Friend agree that NATO must always leave the door open for Ukraine joining?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is completely right and puts his finger on the fundamental point and the thing that we cannot bargain away. A sovereign country must have the right to choose her own destiny, and that is what Ukraine must have. Of course, the path to NATO membership will not be easy for anybody and no one is saying that that is going to happen immediately. But a country must be allowed to choose its own way forward, and that is what we are sticking up for.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Any Russian invasion of Ukraine would be a very serious breach of the terms of the United Nations charter. In 2014, the seizure of Crimea was discussed in the Security Council on seven occasions, I think. Eventually, a resolution was passed to the General Assembly that left Russia extremely isolated. What plans do the Government have to pursue the current crisis through the UN? Given the reality of a Russian veto at the Security Council, we could perhaps look once again to the General Assembly.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is completely right. It is an underestimated point in our favour that I do not believe, in the end, that Russia wants the kind of isolation that would ensue. Of the global institutions, Russia takes the UN very seriously. Russia values her membership of the UN Security Council. What he proposes about using the General Assembly is entirely right. But it is very important that we not only have tough measures but provide the avenue for diplomacy as well.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for sending such a strong and clear message to Vladimir Putin and everyone across the House for backing the Prime Minister on such a crucial issue. At such a worrying time, can the Prime Minister reassure British nationals in Ukraine that our embassy in Kyiv remains open to provide assistance should they require it?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I am very happy to give that reassurance. As I said just now, the embassy continues to function. At least 30 staff are there to look after British interests in Kyiv and around Ukraine.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Kremlin does not act in isolation; it acts against a plan. Will the Prime Minister set out what additional support we will be providing to our allies on NATO’s eastern flank, especially that using UK forces already stationed in those countries, to deter any future Russian aggression after any invasion of Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. What we are all discussing at the moment is what we can do to fortify NATO’s eastern/south-eastern flank. The French are looking at Romania. There are questions about Hungary and what we might do there; as he knows, there are complex issues involving the Hungarian minority in Ukraine. Everybody—particularly the Americans; he heard what I said about the 8,500 troops getting ready to go to Europe—can see the need now to move NATO forces, to fortify NATO’s eastern flank.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
The diplomacy of the velvet glove must be supported by a steel fist if it is to be effective. Does the indirect threat to NATO inform the Prime Minister that NATO must spend more money on its conventional forces? In that respect, will he reconsider the 10,000 cut to our Army?
The Prime Minister
We have spent record sums on our wonderful Army and it is now more agile, lethal and deployable around world, which is why we are able to move at speed and not just deploy in Estonia but, as I said to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), look to move to other parts of NATO’s eastern frontier.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and for Defence for their resolute and strong stance. The UK, NATO and the USA have committed troops to the Baltic states and Poland; to combat and stop Russian aggression, similar support needs to be given to Ukraine. The pictures in the press last week that showed Ukrainian militia training with wooden guns very much illustrated the David and Goliath struggle. Will the Prime Minister confirm that military assistance and boots on the ground are needed urgently in Ukraine right now?
The Prime Minister
I too saw those pictures of Ukrainian civilians training with wooden weapons. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are supporting the Ukrainian army. There is now a strong tradition in Ukraine of militias and people who understand how to fight a guerrilla war. The message we need to get across to the Russian people is that it would be a disaster for them and a political disaster for Vladimir Putin.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
In his very strong statement, my right hon. Friend rightly spoke about the need for western unity. It seems bizarre that Germany, of all countries in Europe, needs to be reminded that murderous dictators will never be satisfied with a single land grab and that any attack on Ukraine is, ultimately, an attack on all of Europe. Will my right hon. Friend remind the Germans of that?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend and I have discussed these types of issues over many years. Actually, given the extreme delicacy of the matter in Germany—given the dependence on Russian hydrocarbons that I have described to the House—I really think that Olaf Scholz is doing a huge job of moving and getting us to a position where we have a united western approach and I commend the German Government.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
For reasons we do not need to go over just now, Germany has blocked some NATO allies from providing certain military assistance to Ukraine. What assessment have the Government made of that blocking? Where it is necessary for Ukraine to defend itself, will the UK Government and others ensure that it gets the maximum spread of capability we are able to provide?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point but, as he knows and as I have told the House, given the NLAWs, or next-generation light anti-tank weapons, that we have sent in addition to all the aid we have given under Operation Orbital, we are the second-biggest contributor to the defence—I stress: the defence—of Ukraine. I saw a poll of the Ukrainian people that said that the UK was now the most popular foreign Government in Ukraine, second only—[Interruption.] Not second only to the Scottish Government but second only to Lithuania.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
The UK is proving to be the pre-eminent European nation in the support and defence of Ukraine, so I thank my right hon. Friend for his leadership on that. Nobody could doubt our commitment to European security. I have been encouraged by my right hon. Friend’s remarks about Germany, but it is critical that the German Government play a full part if we are to deliver the unprecedented package of financial and other sanctions that he described and that were set out in the call last night. How confident is my right hon. Friend of that and what more can he do with Chancellor Scholz to ensure it is delivered?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is right: Germany is absolutely critical to our success in this matter. We have just got to keep the pressure up together.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I heard what the Prime Minister said earlier to the Leader of the Opposition about the introduction of a register of beneficial interests, but my question is: when? It has been six years since such a register was promised at that Dispatch Box and nothing has happened. Every moment that we wait undermines our position. I have introduced my private Member’s Bill on the issue and it has support from both sides; will the Prime Minister please take it up? We need to send the message that cronies’ money is not welcome in this country.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is completely right. In addition to the unexplained wealth orders and the crackdown on tax evasion, we want a register of beneficial interests. I can tell her that the Leader of the House tells me that we will do it as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I have a vibrant Ukrainian community in my constituency, many of whom I met earlier this month. Will the Prime Minister reassure them of our commitment to the defence support package for Ukraine and our readiness to unleash economic sanctions on Russia, and will he stand firm for freedom and democracy alongside the Ukrainian people?
The Prime Minister
Yes, the UK has been at this for a long time now. It was an important signal, which I hope my hon. Friend will take back to his constituents, that we stuck up for Ukrainian rights of navigation when we sent HMS Defender through that route. If hon. Members remember, the Government came under pressure from people for taking what was described as a “provocative” route, but all we were doing was sticking up for the rights of freedom of navigation for the Ukrainians.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
The Russian regime is a clear and present danger to the rules-based international order, so the SNP will be part of the coalition in Ukraine’s defence. In that spirit, does the Prime Minister accept that the real frustration of Opposition Members is that his credibility and the credibility of his Government and of us all has been undermined by continued inaction in implementing the “Moscow’s Gold” report and the Russia report? We would support the legislation to strengthen his credibility, so let us get on with it.
The Prime Minister
I do not think that is fair. The Government have been absolutely ruthless in applying Magnitsky sanctions, which the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) helped to promote. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor produced them and they are a great thing. We have targeted people involved in the poisoning of Alexei Navalny and we will use direct targeted sanctions now against the Putin regime.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Ukraine has very strong historical and cultural links to my constituency, with the Ukrainian embassy, the Ukrainian Cultural Centre and the Ukrainian Institute all based in Holland Park. Can the Prime Minister assure me that we will do everything to support the people of Ukraine in their desire to live in peace?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I am familiar with the statue of St Volodymyr in my hon. Friend’s constituency and I know the amazing contribution of the Ukrainian community to our great capital. I hope that she will pass on the message that we stand four-square with them.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
A percentage of our natural gas comes from Russia and Putin has already said that he will turn off the taps if he deems Moscow to be unfairly sanctioned by the west. My constituents are already struggling with rising fuel costs, which is why I voted for the SNP motion in our cost of living increases debate yesterday. Does the Prime Minister accept that he must bring in a package of domestic policies to help families to pay for bills so that the international issue does not compound the problem?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the price spike in energy around the world. Actually, Russian gas comprises only 3% of the UK’s gas supplies, but we have to mitigate the impact of the cost of energy on families with the cold weather payments and everything that we are doing to increase the living wage—all the support that we are giving families throughout the winter and beyond.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
May I commend the Prime Minister on his tough statement? The point has already been made about the disinformation that is coming from the Kremlin, but he will appreciate that much of that is targeted at NATO. Will he use this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that NATO is a defensive organisation and that it should not in any way be construed as being offensive or threatening?
The Prime Minister
Yes, my hon. Friend is so right, because that is the misconception, whether witting or otherwise. Russia persists in the fiction that NATO is somehow an aggressive alliance and a threat to Russia. NATO is not an aggressive alliance; Russia is not encircled by threats. It is absolutely vital that we convey that to Vladimir Putin. If he can understand that, that is the route to progress and that is the diplomatic path that we have to follow.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Prime Minister will get every support from the SNP Benches for defending national self-determination within Europe. Does he not agree that it is time that the UK Government sign a robust security and defence agreement with the European Union to replace that in the Lisbon treaty—most critically, article 42.7 of that treaty?
The Prime Minister
If we look at what is happening, the conversation I had last night was with European partners comprising the vast bulk of defence spending in the west; we work very closely with our European partners, as we do with all our NATO partners. NATO remains the primary vehicle for our defence. NATO is a very valuable interlocutor with Russia. The NATO-Russia Council has proved its worth in the last few months.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Is this the wake-up call that NATO needs so that all its members finally meet their obligations to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defence?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is completely right. As so many colleagues have said, this is not just about Ukraine. This is about the ambition of the Kremlin to seize this moment to try to reimpose a new order and a new security architecture in the European continent, one that we absolutely reject. We stand for the rights of free peoples everywhere to determine their own fate. That was the fantastic achievement of the end of the cold war, the fall of the Berlin wall, and that high moment in 1990 when we had a Europe whole and free. That is what we are trying to protect.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
There are reports of some Ukrainians beginning to stock up on non-perishable goods. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government have plans in place to support provision of necessities to ordinary Ukrainian people if necessary?
The Prime Minister
Of course we will do what we can to provide economic support in the event of a disaster, but the most important thing we can do now is to try to prevent that disaster from occurring by unifying the west in the way I have been describing this afternoon.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I am sorry not everybody could get in, but we have to move on to the next business.
Point of Order
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since the Paymaster General responded to the urgent question earlier, it has been reported that the Metropolitan police actually want the full Gray report to be published and are surprised at the Government’s position. Given what the Paymaster General told the House about the Government co-operating with the police, if that position is confirmed, we would expect them to do so. Can you give guidance about what the House can do to enforce that if they do not?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. That is not really a matter for the Chair, but a matter for the Government. I am sure he will be able to seek advice from the Table Office and others as to whether there are other avenues that can be pursued in terms of eliciting the information he is looking for. I know the Front Bench will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order and his concerns and I am sure they will report that back.
Consumer Protection (Double Charging)
Tuesday 25th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Consumer Protection (Double Charging) Bill 2021-22 View all Consumer Protection (Double Charging) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about protecting consumers from being charged twice for the same good or service; and for connected purposes.
In a nutshell, this Bill would end the practice where customers are fined or charged again for a good or service that they can prove has already been purchased. Having supported constituents who have attempted, unsuccessfully, to appeal against such charges, I am left with the view that the law needs to change to give consumers more rights and to catch up with changes in technology that those who make these charges do not appear to have embraced. I am grateful to the campaign group Which? for its support for bringing about this change.
Let me give a few examples of those who would be helped if we put this Bill on to the statute book. First, there is the driver who parks their car in a local authority car park and puts their annual season ticket on the dashboard; they close the door and the ticket slips down and is not displayed correctly. Despite being able to prove that they have a season ticket registered to their car, they have not displayed the pass and that delivers them a £60 fine. Secondly, there is the rail passenger who prints out their Trainline documentation, but the ticket barrier cannot read a QR code. Despite the documentation demonstrating proof of payment, it is technically not a ticket, and they get charged a penalty fare at the barrier, despite there being a ticket machine that could print the ticket 10 metres on the other side of that barrier.
These are examples from my constituency—real-life examples—and Which? has supplied others. A driver was issued a parking penalty notice by a local authority because he accidentally used the wrong parking area code on a map, and although he paid the right amount to the right council, it was for the wrong part of the car park. Similarly, a driver was issued with a parking penalty even though they had paid the parking company by phone; the car that was previously registered had been replaced. A woman knocked two parking tickets off her dashboard, and accidentally placed the incorrect ticket for display; this woman owns the space in question under her lease and has evidence of the valid ticket confirming that no loss was suffered by the parking company. Finally, a man received a parking penalty notice after he filled in the wrong entry time for a supermarket car park but paid for the length of his stay. No loss was suffered by the supermarket, which could have confirmed the same by looking at its cameras.
There are numerous additional examples of this sharp practice where consumers have been fined despite no loss being suffered by the organisation. Some organisations offer discretion, but some do not. Many cases occur because the organisation is using outmoded technology. Why is it that local authorities fine drivers for not displaying a ticket when an easier and hassle-free alternative is for a parking attendant to be given the technology to check the vehicle registration against the season ticket database? In our digital age, consumers are being offered efficient ways to purchase, but these are not always being matched by an efficient way to prove purchase. The Bill would ensure that organisations catch up with this century’s technology.
Let us take the Trainline case as an example. My constituent took the train from Brighton to Tunbridge Wells, which necessitated a change at London Bridge. The barrier at Brighton recognised the QR code, so no printed orange rail ticket was needed. The leg from London Bridge to Tunbridge Wells did need an orange rail ticket because the barrier at Tunbridge Wells had not been upgraded, but the constituent did not need to leave the platform at London Bridge. Despite showing paperwork confirming name, payment and train times, the constituent got a penalty fare from the operative manning the barrier. He could have walked 10 metres with her to the ticket machine and obtained the ticket there and then. Instead, he explained that the constituent could appeal the penalty fare; that did not succeed, and neither did an appeal to the fares regulator.
In none of these circumstances or examples did the service provider suffer any loss. Instead, such service providers have ended up making a profit off the back of those customers who have already paid. It is an absolute rip-off, and an obvious black hole in consumer legislation that needs a fix, and this is what my Bill would do. Although the cases I have highlighted are transport- related, this is a general consumer issue, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who is on the Front Bench, will lend his full support. That said, I am grateful for the support of the Transport Committee members who are sponsoring the Bill. I should highlight the importance of those whom this Bill would protect being able to demonstrate purchase. We cannot aid those who seek to commit fraud. With the support of Government, that can be overcome.
The last Bill I attempted to introduce in these circumstances required banks to ensure that every high street supporting 5,000 or more residents had at least one free 24/7 ATM cashpoint. The Government backed that move. Previously, I attempted to bring in automatic and automated passenger refunds, and we have had partial moves in the right direction by the Government. I am grateful to them and to colleagues across the House who have supported the introduction of this Bill—I am afraid that there are more of them than the 11 signatures I am allowed to add, but I am very grateful to see my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) here to support it. We all have constituents who have suffered at the hands of pernicious organisations that are living in the last century, and I very much hope that the Government will find a way to support bringing to an end this sharp practice.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Huw Merriman, Grahame Morris, Karl MᶜCartney, Gavin Newlands, Jim Shannon, Mr Ben Bradshaw, Greg Smith, Robert Largan, Simon Jupp, Sally-Ann Hart, Steve Brine and Robbie Moore present the Bill.
Huw Merriman accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March, and to be printed (Bill 235).
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The shocking and serious allegation made by the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) reminds us that the Conservative Government continue to ignore the blatant Islamophobia in their own ranks. I wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to better safeguard British Muslims and fulfil his promise to carry out an independent investigation into the Conservative party; it took him more than a year to respond. I was then promised a full response from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; it has been two months and I still have not received one. I understand that the Government have been busy with parties—sorry, I mean meetings—but is it in order for Ministers to continue to ignore correspondence on such a serious matter as Islamophobia?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. Ministers should reply to correspondence in a timely manner; I do hope that the hon. Gentleman receives a full reply to his correspondence quickly. I know that Ministers on the Front Bench will have heard his point of order and my response, and I trust that they will take steps to make sure that a reply is sent soon. Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings New Clauses and new Schedules relating to judicial review, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to coroners, amendments of Part 1 and amendments of Chapter 4 of Part 2. 4.00 pm at today’s sitting. Remaining proceedings on Consideration. 6.00 pm at today’s sitting.
Judicial Review and Courts Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 26 October 2021 (Judicial Review and Courts Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
1. Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
2. Proceedings on Consideration—
(a) shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and
(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption at today’s sitting.—(Amanda Solloway.)
Judicial Review and Courts Bill
Tuesday 25th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 View all Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 25 January 2022 - large print - (25 Jan 2022)
15:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 187 / Noes: 315 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 228 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 61 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
00:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 184 / Noes: 310 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:09 - The House divided: - Ayes: 176 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:20 - The House divided: - Ayes: 220 / Noes: 315 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 310 / Noes: 211 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
When the shadow Minister stands up to move new clause 4, I will be grateful if others stand up to indicate whether they wish to participate in the debate on the first group of amendments.
New Clause 4
Publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people at inquests
“(1) Section 10 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after ‘(4)’ insert ‘or (7).’
(3) After subsection (6), insert—
‘(7) This subsection is satisfied where—
(a) the services consist of advocacy at an inquest where the individual is an Interested Person pursuant to section 47(2)(a), (b), or (m) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 because of their relationship to the deceased; and
(b) one or more public authorities are Interested Persons in relation to the inquest pursuant to section 47(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 or are likely to be designated as such.
(8) For the purposes of this section “public authority” has the meaning given by section 6(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998.’.”.—(Andy Slaughter.)
This new clause would ensure that bereaved people (such as family members) are entitled to publicly funded legal representation in inquests where public bodies (such as the police or a hospital trust) are legally represented.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 5—Removal of the means test for legal help prior to inquest hearing—
“(1) Schedule 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 41, after sub-paragraph (3), insert—
‘(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, the “Financial resources” provisions at section 21 (and in The Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013 do not apply.’.”
This new clause would remove the means test for legal aid applications for legal help for bereaved people at inquests.
New clause 6—Eligibility for bereaved people to access legal aid under existing provisions—
“(1) Section 10 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4)(a), after ‘family’, insert ‘or where the individual is an Interested Person pursuant to section 47(2)(m) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 because of their relationship with the deceased’.
(3) In subsection (6), after paragraph (c), insert—
‘(d) or they fall within any of the groups named at section 47 (2)(a), (b) or (m) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.’
(4) Schedule 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is amended as follows.
(5) In paragraph 41, after sub-paragraph (3)(c), insert—
‘(d) or they fall within any of the groups named at section 47 (2)(a), (b) or (m) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.’.”
This new clause would bring the Legal, Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 into line with the definition of family used in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
New clause 8—Exclusion of review of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal—
“(1) Section 67 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) Leave out subsection (8) and insert—
‘(8) Subject to section 67A and subsections (9) and (10), determinations, awards, orders and other decisions of the Tribunal (including decisions as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction and purported determinations, awards, orders and other decisions) shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal or be liable to be questioned in any court.
(9) In particular—
(a) the Tribunal is not to be regarded as having exceeded its powers by reason of any error of fact or law made in reaching any decision; and
(b) the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts does not extend to, and no application or petition for judicial review may be made or brought in relation to, any decision of the Tribunal.
(10) Subsections (8) and (9) do not apply so far as the decision involves or gives rise to any question as to whether the Tribunal—
(a) has a valid case before it;
(b) is or was properly constituted for the purpose of dealing with the case;
(c) is acting or has acted in bad faith, with actual bias or corruption or in some other way that constitutes a fundamental procedural defect.
(11) No error of fact or law made by the Tribunal in reaching any decision is to be construed as relevant to the question.’
(3) The amendment made by subsection (2) applies to determinations, awards, orders and other decisions of the Tribunal (including purported determinations, awards, orders and other decisions) made before the day on which this section comes into force.”
New clause 9—Evidence in judicial review proceedings—
“(1) Unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, no court shall—
(a) permit oral evidence to be elicited in judicial review proceedings; or
(b) order public bodies or any person exercising or entitled to exercise public authority to disclose evidence in anticipation of or in the course of judicial review proceedings.
(2) In relation to any judicial review proceedings, or in anticipation of any judicial review proceedings, in which a public body or a person exercising or entitled to exercise public authority argues, or indicates its intention to argue, that—
(a) the proceedings concern a matter that is non-justiciable, or
(b) that an enactment excludes or limits judicial review, no evidential duty arises on that body or person until a court determines that the matter is justiciable and that no enactment excludes or limits judicial review.
(3) In subsection (2), ‘evidential duty’ means any principle of law or rule of court touching the identification of relevant facts or reasoning underlying the measure or other matter in respect of which judicial review is sought, or any order of the court to adduce oral or other evidence.
(4) Nothing in subsection (2) or (3) affects an evidential duty that may arise in relation to judicial review proceedings other than in relation to a measure or other matter that is argued to be non-justiciable or to be excluded from judicial review by legislation.”
Amendment 23, page 1, line 3, leave out clause 1.
This amendment would remove clause 1 of the Bill continuing the status quo removing the provision to make quashing orders suspended and prospective-only.
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out from “order” to end of line 9.
This amendment would remove the provision for making quashing orders prospective-only.
Amendment 24, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Provision under subsection (1) may only be made if the court is satisfied that it is in the interest of justice to do so.”
The insertion of this subsection would limit the use of any new remedies issued under clause one to where in the court’s view it is in the interests of justice.
Amendment 31, page 1, leave out lines 10 and 11.
This amendment removes the ability to make a suspended or prospective-only quashing order subject to conditions.
Amendment 2, page 1, leave out lines 15 to 18.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1, which removes the provision for making quashing orders prospective-only.
Amendment 3, page 2, line 2, leave out “or (4)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1, which removes the provision for making quashing orders prospective-only.
Amendment 26, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
“(5A) Where the impugned act consists in the making or laying of delegated legislation (the impugned legislation), subsections (3) or (4) do not prevent any person charged with an offence under or by virtue of any provision of the impugned legislation raising the validity of the impugned legislation as a defence in criminal proceedings.
(5B) Subsections (3) or (4) does not prevent a court or tribunal awarding damages, restitution or other compensation for loss.”
This amendment would protect collateral challenges by ensuring that if a prospective only or suspended quashing order is made, the illegality of the delegated legislation can be relied on as a defence in criminal proceedings.
Amendment 27, page 2, line 12, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
This amendment would make clear that the factors which the court considers before making a modified quashing order are a matter for the court’s discretion.
Amendment 33, page 2, leave out lines 14 and 15.
This amendment removes one of the factors to be considered by the courts when deciding whether to award a suspended quashing order or quashing order with limited or no retrospective effect. This is intended to rebalance the factors to be given consideration so as not to disadvantage the claimant unfairly.
Amendment 34, page 2, line 17, at end insert
“including, but not limited to, the interests and expectations of a claimant in receiving a timely remedy”.
This amendment would make it clear that the provision of a timely remedy to the claimant is a factor to be given consideration by the courts when deciding whether to award a suspended quashing order or quashing order with limited or no retrospective effect.
Amendment 35, page 2, line 19, at end insert
“which are to be identified by the defendant”.
This amendment would require the defendant to identify what the interests and expectations of persons who have relied on the impugned act are and to explain these to the court.
Amendment 28, page 2, line 21, leave out
“or proposed to be taken”.
This amendment would remove the requirement to take account of actions which the public body proposes or intends to take but has not yet taken.
Amendment 37, page 2, leave out line 23 and insert—
“(f) the Convention rights of any person who would be affected by the decision to exercise or fail to exercise the power;
(g) the right to an effective remedy for a violation of a Convention right under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and
(h) any other matter that appears to the court to be relevant.”
This amendment would ensure that the courts would take into account the ECHR rights of those affected, including the right to an effective remedy, before exercising the new power to suspend a quashing order or give it prospective-only effects.
Amendment 29, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(8A) In deciding whether there is a detriment to good administration under subsection (8)(b), a court must have regard to the principle that good administration is administration which is lawful.”
This amendment clarifies that the principle of good administration includes the need for administration to be lawful.
Amendment 25, page 2, leave out lines 24 to 32 and insert—
“(9) Provision may only be made under subsection (1) if and to the extent that the court considers that an order making such provision would, as a matter of substance, offer an effective remedy to the claimant and any other person materially affected by the impugned act in relation to the relevant defect.”
This amendment would remove the presumption and make it a precondition of the court’s exercise of the new remedial powers that they should offer an effective remedy to the claimant and any other person materially affected by the impugned act.
Amendment 4, page 2, leave out lines 24 to 32.
This amendment would protect the discretion of the court by removing the presumption in favour of issuing suspended, prospective-only quashing orders.
Amendment 38, page 2, line 29, leave out from “court” to end of line 30 and insert
“may exercise the powers in that subsection accordingly”.
This amendment would remove the requirement for a court to issue a suspended or prospective quashing order when the provisions of section 1(9)(b) apply.
Amendment 32, page 2, leave out lines 31 and 32.
This amendment removes the extra weight which would otherwise be given to subsection 8(e) by the courts when applying the test created in subsection 9(b) to establish whether the statutory presumption is applicable.
Amendment 30, page 3, line 13, at end insert—
“(5) After section 31A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 insert—
‘31B Constitutional importance of judicial review
It is recognised that judicial review is of fundamental constitutional importance to the rule of law, the accountability of public bodies and the government in particular, access to justice and the protection of human rights and that limitations on access to judicial review should only be imposed where strictly necessary and proportionate.’”
This amendment would highlight the importance of judicial review in the UK’s constitutional principles.
Amendment 5, page 3, line 14, leave out clause 2.
This amendment would preserve the ability of claimants to seek judicial review of a decision by the Upper Tribunal to refuse permission to appeal a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (also known as “Cart judicial review”).
Government amendment 6.
Amendment 42, in clause 2, page 4, line 16, leave out from “Ireland” to the end of line 17.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.
Amendment 43, page 4, line 19, at end insert—
“(8) This section does not extend to Scotland.”
This amendment would ensure that the exclusion of review of Upper Tribunal’s permission-to-appeal decisions did not extend to Scotland.
Andy Slaughter
It is a pleasure to open the debate and speak to the new clauses and amendments that stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am grateful to the Government for their co-operation on the programme motion, and to the Minister and his colleagues for the civilised way in which we have debated the Bill thus far. Unfortunately, they were not persuaded by our arguments in Committee, so if there is no movement today, the Opposition will vote against the Bill on Third Reading, as we did on Second Reading. We have issues with part 2 of the Bill, which will mainly be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) in the debate on the second group of amendments, although I will deal in this group with our concerns about chapter 4 on coroners and our proposed new clauses 4 to 6.
I start with amendments to part 1 of the Bill, which are the most numerous and most needed to try to redeem the Bill. There is a strong clue to the Opposition’s approach in amendment 23, which we tabled to leave out clause 1 in its entirety. I have also signed amendment 5, tabled by the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), which would leave out clause 2. In short, we see no merit at all in part 1 of the Bill and would strike it out.
The purpose of judicial review is to determine whether public bodies have made lawful decisions and to provide remedies where they have not. The conceit of the Government’s approach, which would be taken further by new clauses 8 and 9, tabled by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), is that the courts are trespassing on the rights of Parliament, substituting their views for ours and, in some ways, entering the realm of politics. We read that the Justice Secretary and the Prime Minister think that the Bill, which was introduced by the previous Lord Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), does not go far enough in clipping the judges’ wings. They seek to remedy that through repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 and its replacement by a so-called new Bill of Rights and an interpretation Act: an annual audit by Parliament of which judicial decisions it likes and which it seeks to overturn. The Opposition think that that is constitutionally wrong and a provocation.
A better way to look at the role of the courts was set out by the late Lord Bingham in A. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department who, in rejecting submissions from the then Attorney General in that case, said:
“I do not in particular accept the distinction which he drew between democratic institutions and the courts. It is of course true that the judges in this country are not elected and are not answerable to Parliament. It is also of course true…that Parliament, the executive and the courts have different functions. But the function of independent judges charged to interpret and apply the law is universally recognised as a cardinal feature of the modern democratic state, a cornerstone of the rule of law itself. The Attorney General is fully entitled to insist on the proper limits of judicial authority, but he is wrong to stigmatise judicial decision-making as in some way undemocratic.”
We celebrate the role that judicial review plays in our constitution in amendment 30, which says that
“judicial review is of fundamental constitutional importance to the rule of law, the accountability of public bodies and the government in particular, access to justice and the protection of human rights and that limitations on access to judicial review should only be imposed where strictly necessary and proportionate.”
Should the Government prefer that wording to that of the clause, that would be welcome. Failing that, we have tabled 11 further amendments that cumulatively or, in the alternative, seek to mitigate the worst effects of clause 1.
The clause introduces suspended or prospective-only quashing orders and cements them with a presumption that they will employed by the courts in most cases. The Government-appointed independent review of administrative law, which was supposed to lay the groundwork for the Bill, did not recommend prospective-only orders and specifically disapproved any presumption as to their use. Prospective-only orders could deprive claimants of a proper chance of redress and will certainly create a chilling effect. What is the incentive to pursue judicial review if the claimant has no prospect of having the wrong righted?
The presumption is the clearest but not the only way in which the clause seeks to fetter judicial discretion. The Opposition’s remaining amendments seek to restore that discretion and attack the most prescriptive parts of the clause. Amendment 24 provides that modified quashing orders will be applied only where, in the court’s view, it is in the interests of justice, and that they ought to be confined to those rare cases where a quashing order might cause, for example, significant disadvantage to third parties. Amendment 31 recognises that suspended quashing orders may be beneficial in some cases but seeks clarity from the Government on their intentions and what conditions they feel should be met when using the provision.
Amendment 26 looks to preserve collateral challenge in the event that such modified quashing orders are used. Let us say that delegated legislation made during the coronavirus crisis that created imprisonable criminal offences was declared illegal by a court. If a court granted a prospective-only quashing order under the Bill, that would make imprisonment legal before the remedy. A person accused could not argue before the criminal courts that the statutory instrument was invalid, because the measure requires a judge to act as if it were valid. The amendment seeks to protect a person’s right to use the court’s decision as a defence in criminal proceedings.
Amendment 27 clarifies any factors that the court considers are a matter for its own judgment. The current use of “must” instead of “may” directs the judge’s reasoning and interferes with judicial independence and discretion. That is especially obnoxious as judicial review is discretionary and involves taking account of all the factors before the court. The court must be able to do justice on the facts, not be nudged to decide cases favourably to the Executive.
Amendments 33 to 35, 28 and 32 deal with the list of factors the Bill requires the courts to consider when applying a quashing order. For example, amendment 33 will remove a factor that would unfairly disadvantage the claimant. Amendment 34 recognises that a suspended or prospective-only quashing order can leave a claimant waiting for justice, so it asks the court to be mindful of a timely remedy. Amendment 28 would remove the requirement to take account of actions that the public body proposes to take. For example, if a public body tells a court that it intends to carry out certain measures to fix a problem, the court may suspend the quashing order, but if the public body goes away and changes its mind on the actions that it will take, the claimant, again, is left without a timely remedy. Amendment 28 would ensure that the court does not have to take account of the proposals made by a public body, and so a quicker remedy for the claimant ensues. Taken together, the amendments rebalance the proposal in clause 1 to protect the rights of claimants.
Amendment 29 clarifies that the principle of good administration includes the need for administration to be lawful. Let me finally, in addressing clause 1, turn to amendment 25, which would remove the presumption that suspended or prospective-only quashing orders should be used, and, instead, favours an effective remedy being offered to the claimant so that justice is preserved. The presumption set out in clause 1(9) undermines the independence and discretion of the court. The presumption acts on a one-size-fits-all approach to justice and does not respect the judge’s ability to assess the facts laid out in front of them in their courtroom and decide on a suitable conclusion. Amendment 25 also has a further protective factor that, if clause 1 is kept within the Bill and suspended and prospective-only quashing orders are to be used, there will be a pre-condition that there will be an effective remedy. If a single step could improve this part of the Bill, save abandoning it entirely, it is the removal of the presumption. For that reason, we wish to test the House on amendment 25 this afternoon and put it to a vote at the end of the debate.
Clause 2 ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to what are called Cart judicial reviews and removes the supervisory jurisdiction of the court over the tribunal system in those cases—for example, where the upper tribunal has refused the claimant the right to challenge the decision made in the first-tier tribunal not to allow and appeal the earlier decision.
In Committee, we objected to clause 2 both because of the nature of the cases subject to the Cart jurisdiction, which are primarily, but not exclusively, immigration and asylum cases, and because, on the Government’s own admission, it is designed to set a precedent for future employment of ouster clauses, which they clearly intend to become a more common feature of legislation. That is another attempt to subvert the authority of the courts. Unlike with clause 1, there is little that could be done to improve clause 2—you either like it or you don’t. Therefore, most commentators who are concerned by it think that the only solution is to strike it down. That was also the view of both Opposition parties in Committee, and we see from amendment 5 that it is also the view of the Liberal Democrats whose amendment to leave out clause 2 I have signed.
Contrary to the Government’s narrative that Cart judicial reviews are profligate, they are only allowed to proceed where there is an arguable case that has a reasonable prospect of success that both the decision of the upper tribunal refusing permission to appeal and the decision of the first-tier tribunal against which permission to appeal was sought are wrong in law. The claim either raises an important point of principle or practice, or there is some other compelling reason to hear it. Again, this is a mechanism to right a wrong. In the instance of Cart judicial review, it is to be used when there has been a serious error of law in the first-tier tribunal and stops deserving cases slipping through the net.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In view of the shortness of time, I will have to impose, to start with, an eight-minute time limit. It may very well have to be reduced later.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I rise to speak on new clauses 8 and 9, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt).
Those who served on the Bill Committee will not be unfamiliar with the arguments I intend to address, as we rehearsed them at considerable length in Committee. The Minister knows well my general concerns about the Bill: while it is a good start in dealing with the pressing issue of judicial review and how that has been distorted by recent judicial practice, it is only a start. We need much more wide-ranging reform of judicial review and, indeed, much more wide-ranging reform of the relationship between this House and the judiciary, as set out in the Attorney General’s recent speech in Cambridge on judicial activism.
New clause 8 addresses the courts’ role in curtailing the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and especially in circumventing the role of the investigatory powers tribunal. I take a particular interest in that, having been the Minister at the Home Office who introduced the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which deals with the necessary precautions and safeguards associated with the storage and retrieval of electronic data. Indeed, the Bill I took through the House introduced the double lock: all warrants, as well as being dealt with by the Home Secretary, are, as an additional safeguard, dealt with by a judicial commissioner. That safeguard was to ensure the core principles of proportionality and necessity, which lay at the heart of all considerations of that kind.
The problem is that the courts have taken it upon themselves to become involved in matters that should be the exclusive preserve of this House. It is very important to see the Bill in context. The supremacy of Parliament is fundamental to protecting the interests of the people. Parliament’s role in our constitutional settlement is not—as was suggested in an evidence session with Aidan O’Neill QC—a matter of neutrality.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the events of Brexit showed the vivid importance of always maintaining the sovereignty of this place and respecting the will of the people?
Sir John Hayes
Absolutely. The separation of powers does not deal with neutrality. It deals with different powers, which are, by constitutional arrangement, held by the courts and this place. The relationship between the two is critical. It is critical to our considerations today and more critical still to our constitution. A. V. Dicey argued that the separation of powers confers on Parliament a dominant characteristic. Parliament consists of Her Majesty the Queen, the House of Lords and the House of Commons acting together. Therefore, as Dicey says:
“The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, that Parliament… has… the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.”
That is precisely the point that my hon. Friend makes.
We need to reaffirm that principle in general and the Bill is an opportunity to do so. Any Parliament that makes a new law or repeals a law will be obeyed by the courts. That is fundamental to the role of this place. All of us who represent the people, as my hon. Friend says, have a duty, not just a mission, to reflect the will of the people.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Is not the point of judicial review to make sure the Government comply with the rules and restrictions set by Parliament? Restrictions on judicial review allow the Government to ride roughshod over Parliament’s views.
Sir John Hayes
That is, of course, true, and it is why judicial review exists. The hon. Gentleman is right that there need to be checks and balances, but it is wrong to use judicial review to perpetuate matters of high politics or to perpetuate debates that have been settled in the country and in this place.
What we heard from the Minister when we debated these issues at considerable length is that, in effect, people are having several bites of the cherry. Debates were settled and then people came back to reopen them and revisit subjects that had already been agreed. That is not the role of the judicial process and it is certainly not the role of judicial review. The Bill goes some way to addressing that.
The purpose of my new clauses is to probe and press the Government to do more. I strongly urge the Minister to accept them with enthusiasm and alacrity because to involve the courts in matters of investigatory powers, as I said, is quite wrong. The landmark Privacy International case of May 2019 illustrates how wrong it can be. I will not go into detail because time does not permit, but other hon. Members will be familiar with the case and its legal ramifications. I recommend the Attorney General’s speech, which I have mentioned already, to those who want to find out more.
Professor Richard Ekins gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee, and he wrote an excellent paper on these subjects for Policy Exchange. He describes the Supreme Court’s judgment in respect of the Privacy International case as
“a very serious attack on some fundamentals of the constitution.”––[Official Report, Judicial Review and Courts Public Bill Committee, 2 November 2021; c. 15.]
For a very long time, it was not accepted that the courts should become involved in matters of investigatory powers, and particularly the tribunal. There was no possibility of judicial review for 19 years after the 2000 Act was passed.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that these new clauses would, in effect, stop judicial review departing from a narrow focus on a particular public Act and becoming a free-ranging inquiry into Government decision making?
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend makes the point more eloquently than I ever could, partly due to her expertise. The real point is that these cases have created the possibility of a much more wide-ranging rebalancing and reappraisal of the relationship between the courts and Parliament, without public consent—indeed, the public have not been consulted. That is not good for the courts. We want to maintain the integrity of the judicial process by affirming the characteristics they have long enjoyed that underpin the separation of powers. New clause 8 would not only do a great service to the cause my hon. Friend highlights, but improve the Bill and be in the courts’ own interest.
It is important to understand that new clause 9 has two parts. Subsection (1) aims to limit the extent to which judicial review proceedings involve the testing of evidence or resolving and disputing questions of fact. The traditional view is that judicial review proceedings are an inappropriate forum in which to solicit or test evidence because they are a supervisory jurisdiction that should focus on questions of law rather than questions of fact. Once again, what has occurred over time is that the courts have strayed into debates and inquiries about matters of fact rather than matters of law. That status quo prevailed for a very long time, but the role of the courts has altered. Furthermore, there has been a change in the application of judicial review in respect of evidence. The courts ought to be focused on the legality of a decision, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) said, and whether it stands up to appropriate levels of scrutiny—that is the business of a judicial review. Judicial review is supposed to be a backstop, a check, of the kind he described in his intervention—
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The difficulty I have with the right hon. Gentleman’s argument is this: where facts are in dispute, how can a court be expected to rule on a point of law without hearing evidence?
Sir John Hayes
The court can take evidence, but what it should not be doing is fishing for further information, of a wider variety, which opens up consideration of the original process, rather than checking whether that process was right and proper; it is a subtle difference but a fundamental one in terms of the change in the way courts have gone about their business.
Our new clause addresses this issue, as the Minister will know. Jonathan Sumption is the judge who perhaps more than any other has set out the proper functions of the courts in relation to Parliament. In his Reith lecture, he said:
“It is the proper function of the Courts to stop governments exceeding or abusing their legal powers.”
That is absolutely what JR should be, but I fear that it is being compromised by the changes that are taking place as a result of judicial activism. So, mindful of the Attorney General’s advice on this and of the fact that the Government clearly are in tune with that advice—otherwise, they would not have introduced this Bill in the first place—I urge them to accept the amendments, in order to make this Bill be as good as it can be. Rather than waiting for another bus to come along, we should get on this one and get to the destination we all seek.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Much of this Bill has no impact on Scotland or our separate courts and legal system, so our amendments and my comments are focused on the parts that do, which primarily deal with judicial review. The parts of the Bill I will address today are not just bad; they are unnecessary and dangerous, and they lay the groundwork for the Government to insulate themselves and future Governments from proper scrutiny and accountability. I am sure that is on their personal wish list given current events, but we ought to make policy for generations, for everyone and not for one iteration of one political party.
I sat through 11 sittings of the Public Bill Committee and waited for the Government to persuade me that, for example, removing Cart JR was necessary, but instead I heard odds and sods of anecdotal evidence, lots of legal jargon and the phrase “three bites of the cherry” a total of 62 times, with the implication that somehow those using Cart JR had greater access to justice—that simply is not true. Cart JR is not about saying, “I don’t like the decision you've come to, let’s try again for a different judgement.” It is about looking at the situation where, first, a serious error of law may have been committed in the first-tier tribunal, and then the upper tribunal has failed to recognise and correct the error. It could be that the first-tier tribunal failed to consider or misinterpreted the evidence, or that the facts are inconsistent with the decision, but the point is: it happens, mistakes are made and Cart JRs provide a vital safeguard to correct these errors in cases where the stakes can be incredibly high. Rather than this being a “third bite of the cherry”, the reality is that the first bite was not even a slither—a mistake was made. Mistakes do not just affect the person in question; the ramifications are wider. Similarly, Cart JRs not only give one person who has appealed the opportunity to have their case considered properly, but they catch out errors and injustices, benefiting the system as a whole. Cart JRs have been used to ensure that disabled people are given the right benefit entitlement; they have stopped people being made homeless; and they have prevented the deportation of people to countries where they faced certain death. I am currently waiting to attend a first-tier tribunal on behalf of a family member. Given my knowledge of her and of the social security system, I am 100% certain of her entitlement and equally certain it will only fail if a mistake is made when considering the evidence. If that happens, surely my family member deserves the right to have it rectified—surely everybody has that right.
The thing is: the Government know that the impact will be far greater on those who are most vulnerable. In their own impact statement for this Bill, they admit that abolishing Cart would mean that
“those who do lose out…are more likely to have particular protected characteristics, for example in respect of race and/or religion or belief.”
So anyone voting for this ought to be aware and be honest with their constituents that they are consciously voting to the detriment of their constituents with protected characteristics. It is estimated that this will save only £364,000 to £402,000 a year. That is the cost of protecting the rights of some of the most vulnerable people. It is not much to ask for, is it? Let us not pretend that this is about being prudent with the public purse after writing off £4.3 billion of fraudulent covid claims last year.
We will vote against this terrible Bill, but if it does go ahead, our amendments 42 and 43 would protect the Scottish courts and tribunals from clause 2. We in Scotland do not want it, the legal profession does not want it, the Scottish Government do not want it, and I guarantee that the people of Scotland do not want it. This Government are trying very hard to demonstrate their alleged respect for Scotland—in words if not in actions—as the Scottish Government lay the groundwork for an independence referendum; some would say, because of the independence referendum. Well, now is their chance. Now is the chance for all the parties in this place to show Scotland just how much respect they have for our separate and distinct legal system and our right to protect it, and ourselves, from this legislation.
My final thoughts on clause 2 relate to the way in which the Government intend to make this happen—the legal framework. The Government say that the use of an ouster clause will set a precedent for removing certain cases or areas out of the scope of judicial review, but what does that mean? It means that in future they intend to cherry-pick areas that they would rather not see judicially reviewed, which sounds every bit as dangerous as it is. The rule of law and the separation of powers are hallmarks of an effective democracy; we cannot allow the Government to pick and choose where and how they face judicial scrutiny. As Liberty reminds us in its briefing, this Bill is passing through Parliament at the same time as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Elections Bill, to name but a few. Now more than ever, we need the ability and deserve the right to hold the Government and public bodies to account.
Clause 1, on suspended quashing orders and prospective-only remedies, does not extend to Scottish courts and will not apply directly, but it will affect UK-wide legislation to which we are all subject. It will also mean that many more people across these islands may choose Scottish courts, and while I am always happy to promote Scotland and our separate legal system, there may be a capacity issue that has not been discussed or even considered.
Along with others, I have raised the landmark Unison judicial review of 2017 a number of times. The Supreme Court agreed that the fees for access to justice via employment tribunals were unlawful, so everyone who had paid them was refunded, and the Government were no longer allowed to charge the fees from the moment of that judgment. Let us consider what would happen if the Bill were passed and if, instead of seeking a judicial review in 2017, Unison did so this year and, crucially, secured the same decision: the decision that the workers were right, and that what the Government were doing was unlawful. The difference is that if this Bill is enacted, no one initiating a judicial review will have their fees refunded and no one who has already been forced to pay up to £1,200 for an employment tribunal will be refunded either, despite the court’s agreeing that they have been subject to something unlawful. Anyone subsequently requiring an employment tribunal will still have to pay the unlawful fees, and in the meantime the Government will be able to tweak the legislation and make the unlawful lawful. Who would or could go to the expense and trouble of seeking a judicial review given the prospect of no remedy, no justice, and no change in their or anyone else’s situation?
The delaying of a quashing order is, in certain circumstances, the appropriate path to follow, and that is why the courts already have that option. The issue is that it is currently an option, and the clause seeks to make it a presumption. The Independent Review of Administrative Law, which has been largely ignored in respect of its recommendations for judicial review, suggested that “giving courts the option” was enough, but here we see the Government determined to fetter judicial discretion and tie the hands of judges. Our amendment would ensure that it would once more be the case that judges “may” rather than “must” use such delays, and if the Government continue to argue that they are not trying to tie the hands of the judges, they will surely support it tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Helen Morgan to make her maiden speech.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am humbled today to be standing in this historic Chamber representing the people of North Shropshire. Those of you who have visited will know that it is a large and beautiful landscape populated with pretty market towns and villages and with a long and fascinating history.
I would like to start by thanking my predecessor, Owen Paterson, for almost a quarter of a century of service to the people of North Shropshire and, in particular, for his recent campaign and charitable work for suicide prevention.
It is impossible to visit North Shropshire without being taken back in time. An iron-age fort at Oswestry starts the story, as the first settlers here pioneered the farming industry that underpins the local economy to this day. In Welsh, the site is known as Caer Ogyrfan, meaning “City of Gogyrfan”, the father of Guinevere in Arthurian legend. The intertwined story of North Shropshire and British politics may have begun there.
The next step in our history is at Whitchurch, an important staging post on the Roman road to Chester. It takes its modern name from St Alkmund’s church, originally built with white sandstone quarried in the south of the constituency at Grinshill. And here the association continues—this fine white sandstone was also used to make the lintels and door surround of No. 10 Downing Street. I am sure the Prime Minister will be reminded of the beautiful constituency of North Shropshire each time he passes through that iconic entrance.
In the medieval period, Ellesmere’s great castle was taken by Llywelyn the Great, not to be reclaimed by the English until after his death. Its remains are now largely confined to the earthworks they were built on, but luckily, the fortifications at Whittington and Moreton Corbet still bear testament to the turbulence of life in the marches of the medieval kingdom.
Internal strife has played its part as well—in the early stages of the wars of the roses, the Yorkist army thundered past Market Drayton and through North Shropshire, eager to link up with reinforcements in Ludlow after its victory at nearby Blore Heath.
In the civil war, the residents of Wem, the town closest to my home, proved that the communities of North Shropshire are not just decent and resilient, but occasionally radical. It was the first town in Shropshire to declare for the parliamentarians in the civil war. The troops garrisoned in the town had not completed their wooden defences and had only 40 musketeers to hold their position in 1643 when the royalist army approached. The royalists, complacent and confident of victory, approached from Soulton to the east, but legend has it that the women of Wem rallied to the parliamentarian cause and the garrison held. So it seems that while I am the first woman to represent this area in Parliament, I am continuing a fine tradition of women in North Shropshire defending our democracy.
I am reminded of the brave women of Wem when I consider the impact of this Bill. I am sure that colleagues on both sides of this House would agree that our democracy, which has evolved over hundreds of years, and since the 17th century largely peacefully, should be protected at all costs. Fundamental to that democracy is that the rule of law is upheld without fear or favour, but this Bill seeks to undermine that principle. It will limit the ability of ordinary people to hold this Government to account through the courts.
Judicial review is working well. It is a powerful tool for individuals to enforce their rights and stop Governments from overstepping their powers. Abolishing Cart judicial review, for example, would remove a safeguard when tribunals make mistakes in cases where the stakes are often extremely high for the people involved. It is completely unjustified and a backward step. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are supporting amendment 5 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse).
Threatening to weaken the people’s ability to challenge the Government because the courts sometimes rule against you is the act of dictators and despots, not democrats. The best way for a Government to avoid that situation is to ensure that they act lawfully in the first place, not legislate to ensure that there is one rule for the citizens of this country and another for its leaders. The circumstances of my election suggest that the majority of voters in North Shropshire would agree.
As their representative on these green Benches and in the home of democracy, I will always defend their democratic rights and listen to their concerns, regardless of the candidate for whom their vote was cast. I will not give up on the fight for the issues that matter most to them: better access to health and ambulance services, a fair deal for our farming community, and proper provision of infrastructure and public services in rural areas. I very much look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of this House to achieve that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her maiden speech; she is clearly going to be a very lively contributor to our debates.
In order to ensure that we fit everybody in, I will have to reduce the time limit to six minutes. I call Paula Barker.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on her wonderful maiden speech and welcome her to her seat in this place. She talked about this historic Chamber, but of course she herself has made history by being the first Lib Dem and the first female MP in that seat. I wish her all the very best in her endeavours to represent her constituents.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I commend the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for her excellent maiden speech, and for her excellent and pretty amazing by-election victory.
I rise to speak to amendments 1 to 3, 5 and 37, which stand in my name and those of other hon. Members. My sponsorship of these amendments arises from the legislative scrutiny of the Bill conducted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who is the Chair of the Committee and who would normally speak to these amendments, cannot be here today because of her bereavement. I extend my deepest sympathies to her and her family, and I pay tribute to her late husband, the former Member for Birmingham, Erdington, who was a widely respected and loved man.
I remind hon. Members that the Joint Committee is a cross-party Committee, with half its members from the Commons and half from the other place, and we undertake legislative scrutiny of all Bills for their human rights implications. We have taken evidence from a number of people on this Bill, and we have been advised by our own legal experts. On 7 December last year we published a report, which was unanimous, so it had cross-party support from across both Houses. We concluded that if clause 1 were enacted, it would
“not guarantee that an individual would receive an effective remedy for a violation of their human rights.”
We recommended that the Government remove the requirement in the clause
“as it amounts to an unnecessary…intrusion into judicial remedial discretion.”
As I say, that is an informed view reached on a cross-party basis after taking evidence, and that would be the effect of amendments 1 to 3 if they were passed.
If amendments 1 to 3 are not passed, there is a fall-back position. We also recommended that the Bill be amended so that the courts would have to have regard to the convention rights of any person who would be affected by such a decision and the duty to provide an effective remedy for a human rights violation under article 13. That would mean that when courts decide to make a quashing order with suspended or prospective-only effects, convention rights would be required to be taken into account. That would be the effect of amendment 37, which I reiterate that we see as a fall-back if amendments 1 to 3 are not passed.
I turn to clause 2. The Joint Committee shares the view articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) about Cart judicial reviews. We reached the conclusion that judicial supervision of the upper tribunal protects against legal error. Only a small proportion of Cart judicial review applications are successful, but in some of them, individuals could be prevented from being wrongly removed from the United Kingdom to face the most heinous human rights violations in other countries.
We said that rather than taking a hammer to crack a nut in that way, the Government should
“introduce procedural reforms, such as changes to the time-limits for bringing Cart judicial review, and assess their impact, before pursuing the ‘nuclear option’ of ousting judicial review from Cart cases.”
We also said that
“every effort must be made”
to ensure that the initial decision-makers and the first-tier tribunal
“make the best possible decisions when cases are before them”.
That would limit the need for asylum seekers to rely on a third opportunity to have their application for permission to appeal considered, and it would be the effect of amendment 5.
Generally on ouster clauses, which other hon. Members have spoken about this afternoon, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said in our report:
“We are concerned by the Government’s indication that the ouster clause designed to reverse Cart will be replicated in other legislation”.
Clearly, we are concerned about the possibility of undermining the rule of law, which is essential for the protection and enforcement of human rights.
Before I sit down, I want to give my personal support to the amendments tabled on behalf of the Scottish National party, and to reiterate what I said on Second Reading. It is not constitutionally appropriate for the exclusion of review of upper tribunal permission to appeal decisions to extend to Scotland. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is in his place, has conceded to me in a letter dated 10 November that clause 2 will alter the jurisdiction of the Court of Session. It is not for this place to alter the jurisdiction of the Court of Session—that is a contravention of not just the devolved settlement, but article 19 of the Act of Union.
The Minister will say, “Oh no—it is not a contravention of article 19 because it’s a regulation for the better administration of justice.” I am sorry, but in Scotland we do not see regulations that circumscribe the availability of justice to individual members of the public as something for the better administration of justice. The Law Society of Scotland has been clear that a legislative consent motion is required; none has been sought, and none would be granted for an interference with the jurisdiction of the Court of Session.
Finally, as I said on Second Reading, there is no evidence base for there being any mischief in Scotland in relation to Cart judicial review; we actually call it Eba judicial review because of our case. The evidence base that the Government presented was completely confined to cases in England. If clause 2 passes, that will just be another example of this Government overriding the devolved settlement, undermining the Union. Please, Minister, leave Scotland’s legal system to Scotland’s Parliament, where it belongs.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
There has been a lot of turmoil on the Government Benches over the past few weeks—partygate, allegations of blackmail and now Islamophobia. But one thing remains consistent and there is one thing we can count on: the Government have their eyes set on authoritarian rule.
Just look at the recent legislation brought before this House. The Nationality and Borders Bill grants the Government power to strip citizenship without notice. The Elections Bill imposes mandatory voter ID, discriminating against deprived and disadvantaged communities. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill gives the Government the ability to suppress protest that they deem too noisy.
The Government’s own manifesto promised to protect the individual from an overbearing state, yet this Bill does the opposite, fortifying the Government’s power grab. Judicial review enables individuals to challenge the legality of decisions made by public bodies. It ensures that decisions are made in the right way. When honoured, it is a vital process in checking the power of the Government and it is often the sole key to justice for the most vulnerable.
Without judicial review as it stands, EU citizens would have been deported for rough sleeping, innocent NHS staff would have lost their pensions and a child’s cardiac surgery clinic would have been unlawfully shut down. But instead of strengthening judicial review, this Bill strangles it.
Clause 1 incentivises the use of prospective-only quashing orders. That would mean that when a judge overturned a decision that they deemed illegal, justice would be available only for subsequent claims going forward. The judgment would no longer be retrospective. Past victims hurt by illegal decisions would receive no compensation. That does not sound fair or right to me. This measure hollows out the power of judicial review and inevitably means that more justice will be left unaddressed. In fact, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said, the proposals
“tip the scales of law in favour of the powerful.”
Is that not the story of this Government—more money for the wealthy and powerful and an absent hand for those who need it the most? The whole point of a democracy is that the state should not be able to steamroll its citizens, particularly the most vulnerable.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Just a little reminder: it is important to refer to the amendments as well as the clauses in the Bill, as we are at that stage of the proceedings.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I take this opportunity to welcome my new colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), to these Benches. I congratulate her on the excellent speech she made today.
I rise to speak to the Liberal Democrat amendments 1 to 5. The Government claim that the Bill will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of individuals against an overbearing state, but it will have quite the opposite effect. As Amnesty International and others have pointed out, the Bill will tie the hands of the judiciary in respect of what remedies they can order when public authorities act unlawfully. It will weaken the courts’ ability to ensure that justice is done and that human rights violations are remedied.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I rise to speak to a number of amendments and new clauses, in particular new clause 4, which corresponds with the commitment in the 2019 Labour manifesto to ensure legal aid for inquests into deaths in state custody—a commitment first announced in February 2019 by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) in his former role. Closely linked are new clauses 5 and 6, which I also want to mention. The justice charity Inquest has been campaigning for decades for bereaved families to be granted automatic non-means-tested funding for legal representation following state-related deaths.
I support amendments 1, 2, 3 and 23, which are about removing the provision to make quashing orders suspended and prospective only. I place on the record my strong opposition to the removal of Cart judicial review and, as such, I support amendment 5 to delete clause 2 entirely. Amendment 25 speaks to the problem that campaigners have with the prospective-only remedies that the Government are proposing, in that they leave many successful claimants with no effective remedy. On amendments 27 to 30, I agree with Liberty, who argue that, although it supports the amendments, the very fact that so many changes are required to mitigate the harm of the provisions, alongside the lack of any need for their introduction, shows they would be better off discarded altogether.
That brings me to the thread that runs through the amendments, and the crux of the dangers of the Bill as a whole. The legislation before the House today removes vital safeguards that protect often marginalised people, especially migrants, from mistakes being made by public bodies—mistakes that could have a catastrophic impact on their lives. I want to highlight an example of what I understand that to mean and to flesh out one of the many human consequences at stake by talking about disability benefits.
Around four out of five cases where a claimant has been denied disability benefits are overturned on appeal. Why? As we know, serious concerns have been raised about the key measures introduced in the Welfare Reform Act 2012—the replacement of the disability living allowance with the personal independence payment, a new sanctions regime and new assessment processes for employment and support allowance. Even a United Nations inquiry said there were “grave or systemic violations” of the rights of disabled people, in reports to the Information Commissioner concerning the deaths of claimants following their work capability assessment finding them fit for work.
It has been clear for many years that the assessments in particular are not fit for purpose and in many cases are actively harmful to the people who are subjected to them. In some cases, a decision not to award a PIP has been overturned by a tribunal after it had taken account of medical evidence from doctors about the claimant’s condition that had been ignored by officials during the initial assessment.
I am conscious that each of the many thousands of incorrect decisions about what support a disabled person should be getting causes real suffering to that person and to their family and friends. I support the growing calls for an independent inquiry to investigate why claimant deaths are happening, and for the scale of such deaths to be properly understood. The Conservative austerity program of cutting costs through so-called welfare reform has been brutal. We need to scrap the dehumanising work capability and PIP assessments and pursue the social model of disability, removing the barriers constructed by society and ensuring that disabled people can participate fully and equally in our society.
During the covid-19 pandemic we have seen further failures in providing proper financial and practical support to disabled people and their families, which have led to many being denied the support needed. The Government’s strategy in responding to the pandemic has led to many thousands of avoidable deaths, and it is important to recognise that disabled people form a large proportion of those deaths. Yet, perversely, and with a heartless callousness that is breath-taking, the Government’s answer is not to address the widely recognised abomination that is their treatment of people with disabilities, but to seek to further attack their rights—to obscure scrutiny, truth, and justice.
It is no coincidence that as the Government look to water down people’s power to challenge the state, a number of groups are using that power to hold them accountable. Indeed, a host of high-profile court cases, on disability rights, as I have addressed in my comments today, to police violence and climate change, are seeking to challenge the Government’s decisions. I wonder whose side history will come down on in the end—those who challenge injustice and power, or the perpetrators of injustice and power seeking to avoid accountability? We will resist this Government’s attacks on our communities and our rights, and we will overcome.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
May I start by picking up a point that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) made in her excellent maiden speech, on which I congratulate her? If nothing else, recent events reassure us that our constituents quite rightly do not like the Prime Minister, the Government or any public authority operating as if they were above the law or as if the rules that we all have to follow do not apply to them.
Although the Bill may not attract as many headlines as the various partygate stories, it raises the same issues, but in a much broader and more profound way. The Conservative Government are once again trying to put themselves above the law and make sure that basic principles of administrative law and rules passed by this Parliament do not constrain them. That will be the impact of the first two clauses, so I fully support all the amendments that seek to leave out or ameliorate them. I adopt all the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) and all Opposition MPs have put forward today.
I would like to take on the argument made by the Attorney General and others that the Bill is about parliamentary sovereignty, as troubling and overrated a concept as that is. The Bill does not assert the sovereignty of Parliament; it promotes untrammelled Executive authority. It is not about ensuring that Parliament’s will is respected, but about Government and public authorities being able to exceed or ignore the rules and restrictions that Parliament has placed on them. For us to vote for the Bill would be not so much an exercise of parliamentary sovereignty as an exercise in parliamentary stupidity, inviting the Government to ignore the limits we place on them and helping to exacerbate what Lord Hailsham called elective dictatorship.
My main point relates to Scotland and to amendments 42 and 43, which I support. To build on points made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), it is absolutely not for this Parliament to impose clause 2 and changes to Cart and Eba judicial reviews on Scotland’s legal system. As the independent review of administrative law made clear, judicial review is a devolved matter. The review’s report was absolutely clear that it would be for the institutions of devolved government to decide whether to follow its recommendations. Without exception, every single submission from a devolved jurisdiction was opposed to, or at least not persuaded of, the need for reform.
Scotland has undertaken its own reform of judicial review in recent years. For this Parliament to interfere with it risks setting up two parallel systems of review in our jurisdiction, whereby someone challenging a devolved social security decision might face totally different obstacles from someone challenging a reserved social security decision. Again, the independent review was clear, describing such a two-tier system as “highly undesirable”. As my hon. and learned Friend alluded to, the analysis of judicial review in Scotland in the review is limited, as its authors acknowledge, but none of the overall judicial review figures cited—less than 400 cases commenced each year, of which less than 50 make it to a hearing, with 30% successful—justifies these rather obnoxious proposals.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Law Society of Scotland have both concluded that there is “no evidence” of any problem in Scotland that needs this Government to interfere. They, too, confirm that this is a devolved issue. In its briefing on the Bill as long ago as Second Reading, the Law Society of Scotland set out that, unusually, there are two grounds for arguing that the Government should not bulldoze these provisions through: not only are they legislating on a devolved matter, Scots private law, but they are narrowing the competence of the Scottish Parliament because clause 2 creates a rule special to a reserved matter and the Scottish Parliament does not have the competence to abolish or modify such a rule. It is a double whammy.
Indeed, for reasons that my hon. and learned Friend set out, it is a triple whammy. As was pointed out to the Government review panel, the Scottish competence of judicial review derives from article XIX of the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707. The Law Society of Scotland warned the panel that
“care always has to be taken so as not to render the Court’s”—
the Court of Session’s—
“jurisdiction in judicial review ineffective”,
and that if reforms in the area go too far, they may
“be in breach of the Acts of Union”.
I object to the whole purpose of part 1 of the Bill, but even if the Government insist on pressing ahead, the overwhelming view from Scotland is “Get your hands off our judicial review laws.” That is why everybody in this House should support amendments 42 and 43.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
I am grateful to all Members who have contributed to the debate so far. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on an excellent maiden speech. I know that part of the country well and she described it aptly: it is both historic and beautiful. I wish her well in the months ahead.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Will the Minister comment on the assessment that the judicial review on the shortages of personal protective equipment for health workers would not have taken place had this legislation been in place?
James Cartlidge
The point is that these matters are entirely for our independent judiciary. The judiciary will make the judgment on whether the powers in the Bill should be used. I would not want to speculate on whether they would have been used in individual cases; that is not my role as a Minister. We have to have faith in how the judiciary will deploy what are, after all, new flexibilities—as we say, new tools in the judicial toolbox.
Let me move on to the new clauses tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). New clause 8 seeks to re-establish the ouster clause, in response to a 2019 Supreme Court judgment that asserted that certain decisions of the investigatory powers tribunal would not be subject to judicial review by the High Court. My right hon. Friend knows that we are sympathetic to and see merit in what he says, but we think this is not the right Bill or time, given the complexity involved. We want to look into the matter further, though. I was pleased to discuss it with my right hon. Friend in Committee and would be pleased to meet him further.
Sir John Hayes
There are two new clauses, and I am sure the Minister is going to deal with the second one, but the issue of evidence is particularly important, as he will know. Allowing cross-examination on the introduction of new material that was not pertinent to the original decision is not about checking matters of law, but about rehearsing matters of fact and perhaps even going on a fishing expedition for new facts. On investigatory powers, he knows how important it is that the tradition maintained for 19 years is maintained and that the courts simply do not get involved in those matters.
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend makes his point, but given what happened with the Supreme Court, I am sure he would agree that, if we did legislate, we would have to get it right. We feel we want to take our time and ensure that that is the case, but I sympathise with the broader point he makes.
On new clause 9, I would like to reassure my right hon. Friend that the Government are keen to ensure that the duty of candour is not invoked by claimants to rouse political debates or to discover extraneous information that would otherwise have been kept confidential. However, we are not entirely persuaded that primary legislation is the best way of tackling any issues that there might be. As we have said, we are attracted to the independent review’s recommendation that, should it be necessary, the issue could be addressed through changes to the Treasury Solicitor’s guidance. Although that is of course a matter for the Treasury Solicitor, the advantage of using guidance to address some of the issues that have occurred with the duty of candour in the past is that it can be more flexible and dynamic than legislation. On that basis, I am afraid I cannot accept my right hon. Friend’s new clause, but, as I say, we do see merit in what he says.
Turning to amendment 23, which seeks to remove clause 1 of the Bill, the intention behind clause 1 is to address the very practical issues of the courts currently not having sufficient flexibility in deciding on remedies in judicial review. To remove it from the Bill would be to uphold the unsatisfactory status quo, ignoring the findings of the independent review of administrative law, and the Government fundamentally believe that that would be a mistake.
Amendment 1 and amendments 2 and 3, which are consequential on amendment 1, would remove one of the new tools we are proposing—namely, prospective-only quashing or quashing with limited retrospective effect. Let me remind the House of an example I have used previously of a real situation where the existence of the remedy could have been useful. It occurred when Natural England, in response to a threatened judicial review, decided to revoke general licences enabling farmers, landowners and gamekeepers to shoot pest birds. The revocation created immediate chaos for licence holders. I do not seek to re-litigate this case in the Chamber, but as I have said before, had the proposed remedies been available, Natural England may have been more willing to contest the judicial review, knowing that even if the existing licensing scheme was found to be unlawful, the court had the ability to protect past reliance on old licences. Such cases provide a tangible example of how more flexible remedies will allow courts to respond pragmatically and assist our constituents, rather than detract from their interests.
Amendment 31 would remove the ability of a court to make a suspended or prospective-only quashing order subject to conditions, and the ability for courts to give conditions can be important and is not unusual.
Amendments 4, 27, 38 and 25 all seek to remove or weaken the presumption in some way. Characterising the presumption as seeking to control the courts or remove their discretion is misleading, as I said back in Committee. My view is that including the presumption, combined with the list of factors in clause 1(8), will make the decision-making process consistent and thorough. That will assist in the speedy development of jurisprudence on the use of the new remedies, which has to be in the interests of justice for all the parties.
Amendments 28, 32, 33 and 35 all relate to the factors courts must consider in applying these new remedies. I would like to reiterate that the list of factors is there as a useful guide to the courts when considering the new remedies. It will help the jurisprudence to develop in a consistent manner. It is a non-exhaustive list, and not every factor will be relevant in every case. We trust the courts will understand that and apply the factors appropriately.
Turning to the remaining amendments to clause 1, amendment 34 proposes that there should be a specific requirement for a court to consider the effect these new remedial powers have on a claimant receiving a timely remedy. In fact, subsection (8)(c) already requires the courts to take into account the interest or expectations of those people who would benefit from a quashing, and I would submit that includes considering timeliness. Likewise, on amendment 24, the protections built into clause 1 mitigate the risk of a court being compelled to use the new quashing order powers where to do so would be against the interests of justice. Subsection (9)(b) of proposed new section 29A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 makes it clear that the court is only obliged to use the new modified quashing orders where it
“would, as a matter of substance, offer adequate redress in relation to the relevant defect”,
and is not obliged to use them where
“it sees good reason not to do so.”
I submit that the concerns raised in amendment 26 are already mitigated by the drafting of the provision. The list of factors includes
“the interests or expectations of persons who would benefit from the quashing”
and
“any other matter that appears to the court to be relevant.”
Additionally, having considered those factors, the court can add any conditions to the quashing order. It could be, for instance, that the Government do not take any further action to enforce the unlawful decision.
Amendment 29 seeks to clarify that the principle of good administration includes the need for administration to be lawful. We would have thought that that was fairly obvious, and should always be the case.
Amendment 37 seeks to ensure that the courts take into account affected people’s rights under the European convention on human rights, including the right to an effective remedy under article 13 of that convention. I would argue that the requirement in the Bill for the courts to have regard to the interests or expectations of persons who would benefit from the quashing of the impugned act would include having regard to any remedy and its appropriateness.
I now turn to clause 2, and amendment 5 which seeks to remove clause 2 from the Bill. I remind the House of the arguments that I made in support of this necessary and proportionate measure in Committee. First, the Cart JR route essentially equates to a third bite at the cherry—a phrase that we probably have overused, but which I think to the uninitiated explains it very well—after both the first-tier tribunal and the upper tribunal have refused permission to appeal. Secondly, it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that judicial resource is efficiently distributed. The success rate of Cart JRs is very low—around 3.4%, compared with 30% to 50% for other judicial review cases—indicating that it may not be the best use of judicial time.
Wera Hobhouse
Will the Minister accept that it is often a matter of life and death, and that therefore his argument does not really stick?
James Cartlidge
Those matters should be determined with—I hate the phrase—two bites at the cherry, which is common across most areas of law. That is perfectly adequate. The process takes up 180 days of High Court judges’ time on case with almost no chance of success. High Court judges’ time, in the context of the backlog we have, is very precious indeed.
I now turn to the amendments 43 and 42, tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin). Just to be clear, the unified tribunal system, created by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, is a reserved matter where it relates to matters of reserved policy. The measures on Cart and, particularly in relation to Scotland, the Eba case will apply to the unified tribunal system within the UK, but it will not apply to matters heard that would fall inside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and it will also not apply to devolved tribunals.
James Cartlidge
I am sorry; I have one more important Government amendment that I wish to cover. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
If the measure did not extend to Scotland even on matters that are not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, that would create an inconsistency within the unified tribunal framework based purely on geography.
Finally, the group also contains Government amendment 6 to clause 2. Subsection (4) of new section 11A sets out a number of exemptions, circumstances in which the supervisory court could still review a decision of the upper tribunal to refuse permission, or leave, to appeal the decision of the first-tier tribunal. One of those exemptions, subsection (4)(c)(ii), is if the upper tribunal acts in
“fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice”.
Clarifying the meaning of the natural justice exemption is the intent of the amendment. The Government accept that the meaning of natural justice is currently established in case law and relates to procedural impropriety. However, the understanding of the term has developed over time through common law and could develop further in the future.
As our intention is for substantive procedural errors to remain reviewable but errors of fact or law to be ousted, it is the Government’s view that the wording would be clearer if the amendment referred to procedure in the context of natural justice. That is not a change of policy; it is how the Government, and I am sure the majority of right hon. and hon. Members present, understood the clause during our previous debates and votes. However, this clarification should confirm to the courts exactly how Parliament intends the ouster clause to be interpreted.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Online Procedural Assistance—
‘(1) Online Procedural Assistance, must be made available and accessible to any party or potential party to proceedings governed by Online Procedure Rules that requires it. In delivering this duty, the Lord Chancellor must have due regard to the intersection of digital exclusion with other factors, such as age, poverty, disability and geography and deliver support services accordingly.
(2) It must include assistance to enable such a party or potential party to have a reasonable understanding of the nature of the proceedings, the procedure applicable under Online Procedure Rules and of how to access and navigate such procedure. To this effect, it will provide both advice and technical hardware, as appropriate, and will provide assistance to such individuals throughout the course of their proceedings.
(3) Anyone who requires Online Procedural Assistance must have the option of receiving it either via remote appointments or in-person appointments at a site local to them.
(4) Online Procedural Assistance must include, for a party or potential party whose first language is not English, assistance, by interpretation or translation as appropriate, in a language that is familiar to the party or potential party.
(5) The delivery of Online Procedural Assistance must be evaluated at yearly intervals by an independent evaluation team. To assist in these evaluations, data must be routinely collected relating to the protected characteristics of those using the service, outcomes of cases that used Online Procedural Assistance and the frequency and location of the appointments provided. This must also be made publicly available.’
This new clause clarifies the nature of online procedural assistance.
New clause 3—Review of the single justice procedure—
‘(1) Within two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must commission a review of and publish a report on the effectiveness of the single justice procedure.
(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the transparency of the single justice procedure in line with the principle of open justice,
(b) the suitability of the use of the single justice procedure for Covid-19 offences, and
(c) prosecution errors for Covid-19 offences under the single justice procedure and what redress victims of errors have.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.’
New clause 7—Compatibility with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights—
‘(1) This Act must be construed in accordance with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
(2) If a court or tribunal has found a provision of this Act to be incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it may, on application, make an order to that effect and that provision shall cease to have effect.’
This new clause would ensure the compatibility of the Act with Article 6 of the ECHR (right to a fair trial).
Amendment 36, clause 3, page 4, line 28, at end insert—
‘(1) Before this section may come into force, the Secretary of State must—
(a) commission an independent review of the potential impact, efficacy, and operational issues on defendants and the criminal justice system of the automatic online conviction and penalty for certain summary offences;
(b) lay before Parliament the report and findings of this independent review; and
(c) provide a response explaining whether and how such issues which have been identified will be mitigated.’
This amendment would require a review of clause 3 before it can come into force.
Amendment 20, page 5, line 34, at end insert—
‘(e) the prosecutor is satisfied that the accused does not have any vulnerabilities and disabilities that impede the ability of the accused to understand or effectively participate in proceedings, having undertaken a physical and mental health assessment.’
This amendment would require that all accused persons considered for automatic online convictions are subject to a health assessment, and that only those who do not have any vulnerabilities or disabilities are given the option of being convicted online.
Amendment 21, page 5, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert—
‘(4) An offence may not be specified in regulations under subsection (3)(a) unless it is—
(a) a summary offence that is not punishable with imprisonment; and
(b) a non-recordable offence, which excludes any offence set out in the Schedule to the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000/1139 (as amended).’
This amendment would exclude any offences which are recordable from the automatic online conviction option.
Amendment 22, clause 9, page 26, line 1, leave out subsection (5).
This amendment would remove cases involving children and young people from the provisions of clause 9.
Amendment 40, clause 21, page 39, line 13, leave out “(3) and (4)” and insert “(3), (4) and (4A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 41.
Amendment 41, page 39, line 30, at end insert—
‘(4A) The Lord President of the Court of Session is to appoint one person with experience in and knowledge of the Scottish legal system.’
This amendment would require the Online Procedure Committee to include a person with experience in and knowledge of the Scottish legal system, appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session.
Government amendments 7 to 19.
James Cartlidge
The Government’s new clause 1 will provide powers to vary the maximum prison sentence that magistrates courts can give for a single offence. Court recovery remains a top priority for the Government. We have considered all options to support recovery in the criminal courts and have already taken several steps, such as investing £250 million in court recovery in the last financial year. The most recent spending review settlement provides £477 million to improve waiting times for victims and to reduce Crown court backlogs caused by the pandemic.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I have spent 16 years of my professional life trying to keep people out of prison. I have also worked within the current sentencing guidelines of six months. I support the Minister. Although I appreciate that this is a technical amendment, the magistrate should have increased sentencing powers—it is in the interests of justice. All my constituents welcome this, and we should be imposing deterrent sentences rather than the incredibly lenient sentences that are often handed out by magistrates because they do not feel that they have sufficient powers or length of sentence to replicate the seriousness of the offences that they are facing.
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend has put his point on record, not least as someone who speaks with huge experience as a criminal solicitor—a voice of which we do need to hear more in these debates. It is an excellent point.
Magistrates play a vital role in our justice system. I would like to put on record, as I have done previously, my immense gratitude to our magistrates, our volunteer judiciary, for their work in tackling the backlog. They put in a herculean shift to bring down the backlog and make extra capacity, which we can now utilise.
James Cartlidge
I give way to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Neil Parish
I seek reassurance from my hon. Friend that this measure will speed up the process, so that we will see more people being brought to justice, and also more people getting their cases heard, so that justice is done.
James Cartlidge
I will explain very shortly what impact we expect this to have on the delays, which my hon. Friend is quite right to raise.
Just to be clear, in the coming months, we will be extending magistrates court’s sentencing powers from a maximum of six months to 12 months imprisonment for a single triable either-way offence by commencing existing provisions in the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Extended sentencing powers will allow for more cases to be retained in magistrates courts, allowing these cases to be heard more quickly and with the intended effect of reducing the backlog of outstanding cases in the Crown court. Just to be clear, we estimate that this will save nearly 2,000 Crown court sitting days per year. Magistrates are also fully capable of hearing these cases. They make sound legal decisions, which is supported by the fact that there is very low appeal rate of only 0.7%, 50% of which are dismissed or abandoned.
Sir Robert Neill
I, too, support this amendment. My hon. Friend will remember, or will perhaps know, that the Justice Committee has raised this in the past when we did an inquiry in relation to magistrates. A concern was raised by his predecessor that this might have an impact on the levels of those going into custody, but we were never able to find any evidence to support that. It seemed, essentially, anecdotal. Has any hard evidence been found to suggest one way or another?
James Cartlidge
The short answer is no. That is certainly my impression. The reason that we are making this change is that we have faith in our magistracy. I have spoken about the huge shift that they put in during the pandemic to get the backlog down in the magistrates courts. When it comes to trying to make guesses about what impact this will have, the key thing is to simply trust our magistrates to look at the case before them, to take into account sentencing guidelines, to take the advice of their legal advisers, and to make their sentence according to the circumstances of the case before them, which is how they always behave.
We want to make this change as quickly as possible, so that we can ensure maximum benefit for court recovery. That is why we will be implementing the policy on a national basis from the outset, rather than first running a pilot in select courts. This clause supplements the provisions to extend the sentencing powers of magistrates courts by introducing a power to vary the limit on the length of sentence that the magistrates courts may give to either six months or 12 months in the future. This will ensure that there is the ability to return to the current position in the event that any unsustainable adverse impacts materialise—of course, we sincerely hope they will not.
Taken together, this amendment and the magistrates’ recruitment campaign launched this week shows that this Government are committed to our magistracy and understand how important they are for court recovery.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I also support this amendment and the efforts being made by my hon. Friend’s Department and across Government to increase the ability of magistrates to hear and deliver justice. Can he confirm that, through this Bill, the raising of the magistrates’ retirement age from 70 to 75 will include those who have already been forced to retire at 70, so that, where there is local demand, they can come back and serve some of the justice that we now want to see being brought forward?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, because, of course, we do want to achieve precisely that. Just to be clear, it is not in this Bill. It is in the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill that is going through at the same time—I spoke on its Second Reading. The key point, as my hon. Friend has said, is that it raises the mandatory retirement age to 75, and we think that that will have a significant impact. In fact, we have estimated that it could lead to 400 additional magistrates coming in at a time when we really need that resource because of the backlog.
We have tabled other amendments on employment tribunals. Amendments 7 to 19 to schedule 5 are minor and technical, and ensure that terminology used in employment tribunal procedure is up to date, and that it correctly reflects terms used in employment tribunal procedure regulations. There are of course a number of non-Government amendments in this group, and I will respond to them once we have heard from the Members who tabled them, towards the end of the debate.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Let me first thank the Minister and other colleagues on the Bill Committee for their kind comments on the last day. Sadly, I was unable to join them because I had tested positive for covid Double vaccinations protected me well, and I got off lightly. I am also grateful to the Minister for his helpful engagement with many of our concerns in Committee.
The Opposition understand the need to modernise our court and tribunal proceedings, and we appreciate the potential of online and digital procedures to increase the efficiency of our courts for those who use them and work in them. However, we also recognise that alongside any innovative changes, appropriate safeguards must be introduced to ensure that access to justice and engagement in our justice system are not inadvertently hampered for anyone. I am concerned that the criminal procedure and online rules procedure sections of the Bill as drafted do not sufficiently safeguard access to justice, particularly for young people and children and people with vulnerabilities.
On Second Reading, the Lord Chancellor said:
“Physical hearings will always be available for those who need and want to use them, so that those who are uncomfortable or cannot access the digital and online applications will not be prejudiced.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 195.]
While I welcome that commitment from the Lord Chancellor, I do wonder why the Government would not go so far as putting such safeguards in the primary legislation, instead choosing to vote down every Labour amendment that tried to secure the rights of young and vulnerable individuals to engage with the justice system in the way most suitable for them. Today we are giving the Government a second chance, and I hope that the Minister uses it well and supports the amendments we have tabled.
Before I come on to the Opposition amendments, I will address new clause 1 and its consequential amendments, as we were not able to scrutinise these proposals in Committee. At this stage, I join the Minister in praising the work of our magistrates up and down the country. They do a grand job, often in very difficult circumstances. However, I do not understand why we did not have the opportunity of full legislative scrutiny of these proposals in Committee, rather than their being tabled at this late stage. Indeed, in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) on Second Reading, the Lord Chancellor confirmed that the proposals were already being considered at that time.
Ministers have explained that new clause 1 is intended to provide additional capacity to help decrease the burgeoning backlog of cases in the Crown court. In the Ministry of Justice’s own statistics, released just last week, it has been revealed that delays in the criminal justice system have hit a record high. It takes an average of 708 days from the commission of an offence to the completion of a criminal case in the Crown court, so we need action. The Opposition want to see dramatic decreases in these numbers, and will support the Government in measures that will genuinely contribute to a reduction in the backlog. However, I seriously doubt that increasing sentencing powers of magistrates will have the measurable impact that all those involved in the criminal justice system are crying out for.
According to the Government, the measures could
“save 1,700 sitting days in the Crown Courts by enabling 500 jury trials to be switched to magistrates”.
It appears, however, that that estimate presumes that defendants will not exercise their right to opt for a jury trial. Will the Minister tell the House on what basis the Government have made this presumption? It strikes me that one of the primary reasons for not electing for a trial in the Crown court is in fact the lesser sentencing powers of magistrates, but as this cap is increased, I imagine that a trial by jury may seem a more appropriate option for more defendants and so they will still end up in the Crown court. Even if all defendants did choose not to exercise their right, the Government’s plan would represent a tiny saving overall.
I see that Jo Sidhu QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, has also suggested that the increase in magistrates’ sentencing powers will not have the effect that the Lord Chancellor hopes, as it will lead to more cases being appealed in the Crown court, thereby potentially increasing rather than reducing the workload.
James Daly
That assessment is completely at odds with my 16 years of working in this field. When a case is committed to the Crown court, it is on the basis of the maximum sentence that could be imposed in the circumstances. The increase in sentencing powers will bring many more cases—burglary, affray, first-time offenders—back into the magistrates courts and avoid the ridiculous situation whereby straightforward cases that can be dealt with in a magistrates court are committed to the Crown court for no reason.
Alex Cunningham
I am not saying that we oppose the proposal—Labour legislation first put it on the statute book—but people in the magistrates courts will get higher sentences and may well feel the necessity to appeal, so we will potentially have more appeals.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), one of the main reasons for cases going to the Crown court is that magistrates refuse jurisdiction and send them there. There is no certainty that higher sentences will be given to individuals who are found guilty. They may well get exactly the same sentence in a magistrates court as they would get in a Crown court. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) is confusing the issue. The fact that magistrates can now keep a case in their court without having to refer up to a higher court will reduce the backlog in Crown courts.
Alex Cunningham
We believe the potential is there, but we want to understand the statistics on which the Government have based the proposal. However, I will move on now.
Have the Government taken into account the potential increase in appeals? I imagine that could quickly offset the 1.6% saving in sitting days. The increase in sentencing powers is interesting in the context of existing provisions in the Bill, particularly in relation to the new allocation procedure.
As Justice points out, there is a risk that more serious cases
“could proceed without defendants being physically present for a hearing, and as such without the defendant’s informed input as to whether the case should be heard in the Magistrates’ or Crown Court.”
It is also important to consider the proposal in the light of clause 9, which will allow hearings to take place in the absence of the defendant in many circumstances. Can the Minister share any assessment that the Department has made of the potential impact on appeals to the Crown court of introducing the increase in sentencing powers at the same time as the new allocation procedure and clause 9?
As the Minister outlined, new clause 1 will enable the Government to switch off and back on the maximum custodial term that a magistrates court may impose for an either-way offence—in other words, he is taking the power to reverse these new sentences when it suits the Lord Chancellor. I am interested to hear in what circumstances the Minister would want to reduce magistrates’ sentencing powers in future. Will that be triggered by the backlog reaching a certain level, or does he think there is a high risk that there will be unintended consequences, such as those that the CBA, Justice and I have described?
The whole approach suggests that the Government are not too confident that the proposal will be the success that they hope. Until Ministers address the shortages in judges, criminal practitioners and appropriate court space, victims and defendants will continue to suffer excessive waits until their cases are concluded.
I will now move on to the Opposition’s amendments and new clauses, which, as I explained earlier, aim to introduce a number of safeguards into the Bill to ensure that access to justice is not hampered in the drive towards efficiency that online and remote processes can offer.
Clause 3 creates an automatic online conviction and standard statutory penalty procedure, which will provide automatic online convictions as an alternative to the single justice procedure. Through this process, a defendant could opt to plead guilty online, which would result in an automatic conviction without the need for a hearing.
The process rightly already has some limitations. For example, the defendant must consent to use of the process, so they retain the right to opt for an in-person hearing instead. Furthermore, the procedure is only available in respect of non-imprisonable summary offences where the accused was aged 18 or over when charged. The Opposition agree with those limitations, but we think they need to go further. Amendment 20 would require that all accused persons considered for automatic online convictions, as introduced by clause 3, are subject to a health assessment, and that only those who do not have any vulnerabilities or disabilities are given the option of being convicted online.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has recognised that remote justice is unsuitable for disabled people, such as those with learning difficulties, cognitive impairments or mental health conditions. The commission identified that remote proceedings reduced chances to identify a court user’s additional needs and make the appropriate adjustments. I know the Minister will share my anxiety that further roll-out of remote processes without the right safeguards may compound those inequalities even further. A recent criminal justice joint inspectorates report emphasised the need for default screening of all criminal suspects and defendants for disability, including neuro-disability. That proposal was supported by the former Lord Chancellor, who promised action on this issue. I sincerely hope his successors will uphold his promise by supporting this amendment.
I am aware that it is the Government’s intention for online pleas to be entered via the common platform, which potentially provides at least one instance where a court user’s needs can be identified so that adjustments can be made. However, the ongoing chaos with the common platform demonstrates why that would not be a sufficient safeguard in this regard. The pilot and early adopter sites have established that in its present form, at least, the common platform is not fit for purpose. The experience of the pilot courts has been widely reported to the Public and Commercial Services Union as disastrous. Their members have been working late into the evenings in an attempt to record case outcomes, with work often disappearing into thin air. Case outcomes that took a matter of seconds to record in a paper file are now taking in excess of an hour to record, provided the system is even working. Although Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has taken steps to address slowness and instability since the intervention of the senior presiding judge in pausing the roll-out last year, PCS does not accept that those steps have addressed the fundamental design flaws. Results still routinely disappear from the court record.
I am told that confidence in the common platform at the Crown Prosecution Service—the common platform was initially a joint CPS and HMCTS venture—is so low that the CPS has retained its case management system and is using that in preference to the platform. Given the low level of confidence in the system among the professionals who use it, I am sure the Minister can recognise why I do not believe it should be relied on as a safeguard as more remote justice procedures are introduced and rolled out. Instead, he should listen carefully to the EHRC’s findings and introduce meaningful screening measures.
I turn to amendment 21, which would introduce a further safeguard to the automatic online conviction and standard statutory penalty procedure by excluding recordable offences from its purview. When I raised my concerns in Committee about the application of the AOCSSP to recordable offences, the Minister confirmed:
“There is currently no intention to extend the procedure to any recordable offences.”––[Official Report, Judicial Review and Courts Public Bill Committee, 9 November 2021; c. 228.]
The Opposition welcome the Minister’s words, but we would prefer to see that confirmed in primary legislation. The Bill already limits the use of the procedure to summary and non-imprisonable offences, but the consequences of a recordable conviction, even for such an offence, can still be serious. Many people will not understand the impact that a conviction can have on their lives. For example, it can have a detrimental impact on employment prospects in certain sectors.
In its current format, it seems as though the AOCSSP will incentivise people to plead guilty out of convenience, regardless of whether they have an arguable case. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is vital that no one is adversely impacted by pleading guilty without recognising the full impact. If the Government agree with that point, I hope the Minister will confirm that support by limiting the procedure in primary legislation to non-recordable offences.
I now consider amendment 22, which would remove children from the provisions of clause 9. Again, in Committee the Minister provided me with additional briefing on this point, for which we were very grateful. It was not, however, enough to quell my concerns about the fact that courts will be able to proceed if a child defendant is absent from a plea and allocation hearing. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that he recognises that
“in the majority of cases, the courts may not deem it appropriate to proceed”––[Official Report, Judicial Review and Courts Public Bill Committee, 16 November 2021; c. 271.]
in the absence of the child. Given that, I do not know understand why the Government insist on keeping the provision in the Bill. I have spent much time in this role trying to unpick Government proposals that treat children more and more like adults in the justice system, in both this Bill and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. It is extremely worrying to me that here we have yet another example of the Government failing to treat children in an appropriately distinct way. It is the position of the Opposition that they should be removed from the scope of the clause entirely.
Sir Robert Neill
All in all, this is a valuable Bill and I welcome the Government amendments. I practised criminal law for the better part of 30 years before I came into the House—in both magistrates courts as a younger barrister and then predominantly in the Crown court, both prosecuting and defending. It never seemed logical that the legislative provision introduced by the Labour Government in 2003 had not actually been brought into force.
Much has changed since that time in the way magistrates operate—and for the better, frankly. It seems to me that there have been real efforts to make the bench more diverse, and those recruitment activities are continuing. As a Select Committee in the previous Parliament, we wrote a report about the magistracy—the first for a number of years—that recognised the value of the work that magistrates do. Since 2003, the sentencing guidelines have been developed to a high degree and they are available now to all benches as well.
Andy Carter
My hon. Friend mentioned a diverse bench. Does he agree that it is vital that employers think about the value of having employees on the bench? They should be considering that step in personal development for employees.
Sir Robert Neill
I salute my hon. Friend’s work as a magistrate over many years. What he says is absolutely true, and the Justice Committee report picked the point up at the time. When I practised in parts of east and central London, magistrates benches used to have a very high number of what we would now term blue collar workers—frequently trade union officials and public sector workers. They were given time off. Some of the major employers—Ford at Dagenham in the old days, for example—used to allow employees time off to serve as magistrates. The courts were much the better for that. I hope that that can be encouraged and we should make it easier to achieve.
We should also look at magistrates’ expenses, which have not been updated for very many years. We do not need legislation to do that, but we should make it worth people’s while to serve and not leave them out of pocket. That is important.
When the Committee published the report and considered why the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 had not been brought into force, we questioned the evidential basis. At that time, the Ministry of Justice’s line was that there was a risk of an adverse impact on the prison population, but we were never able to find any evidence to establish that. I think there is a bit of an urban myth that magistrates are heavier handed in sentencing than the Crown court would be. In fairness, when I first started, there might have been a bit of anecdotal evidence that I came across to support that view, but things have moved on over the years. The benches have a more sophisticated approach to sentencing and the guidelines have developed to such a degree that that dimension has changed.
James Daly
I truly wish that my hon. Friend would come to Bury magistrates court, then he would know a bench of magistrates who were willing to impose the stiffest possible sentences. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the backlog, on which this debate is framed. I am a member of the Justice Committee, under the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). We should be considering the measures in terms not just of the backlog, but of the new offending that comes into the system. I believe the measures will give confidence to the police and to other partners in the criminal justice system that, instead of creating more backlog, by releasing more people under custody we can get them before the magistrates, sentenced and dealt with at the earliest opportunity.
Sir Robert Neill
I agree with my hon. Friend and recognise his experience in the field. I do not think this needs to be framed as a backlog-reducing measure. There is merit in the measure in its own right, as there was in 2003 when the Labour Government introduced it. With all due respect to the Minister, it does a bit of disservice to the measure to say it is done to reduce the backlog, and that it can be reversed. I would hope it would not be reversed; it is desirable in terms of a better allocation of case time, and it is a better use of court arrangements to keep lower level cases in the magistrates court.
A powerful point was made about the reduction in the number of committals for sentence and those cases when the magistrates refuse jurisdiction in relation to either-way offences. I do not think that will be eaten away by people electing that course of action needlessly, particularly if they have good and sound early legal advice.
That is where I think we can improve the system. Doing so does not require our legislating in this Bill, but we should make sure that when we revise the legal aid system, we front-load it so that there is proper legal advice available from solicitors at a very early opportunity to get informed pleas and early disclosure into the system. That will of itself be likely to keep more cases down at the magistrates court level, and would get more pleas. When they are confronted with the reality of the evidence, and with sound advice, more people will accept that they should enter a guilty plea when they have committed an offence.
That is the right way to deal with the issue, which is why I think the amendment is entirely justified in any event. Of course, it has to be applied on a national basis. The idea of a pilot never seemed realistic and would be against the principle of natural justice. It could not be right if there was a postcode lottery and someone could get a higher sentence in Bury than they could in Bromley because one was in the pilot. We either do it nationally or not at all, and the Government have made the right call.
I hope we will continue to invest in training and professional support for the magistracy, which again our Committee report called for.
Edward Timpson
We have to remember that magistrates sit not only in the criminal courts, but in the family proceedings courts. Support and advice, and the recruitment of magistrates, will be really important in making sure that children and families are also getting justice through the family court system.
Sir Robert Neill
That is entirely true. We know that there is sometimes a struggle to get sufficient magistrates to sit in the family jurisdiction. They are absolutely crucial. There is a separate piece of work that needs to be done, so that, as with early legal advice, informed decisions and choices are made. That applies in the magistrates court in the criminal jurisdiction and also to decisions that have to be taken in family court proceedings. I am a great believer that the lawyer is the best route into mediation in many family law cases. Having the magistrates end of the family jurisdiction treated seriously is really important for doing justice and for the early resolution of issues for the benefit of the parties and the children involved.
Alex Cunningham
The Chairman of the Justice Committee, as always, talks very clear sense. If we are going to have all these training programmes, attract people to the magistracy and everything else, we will need resources, so will he join me in encouraging the Lord Chancellor to go banging on the door of the Treasury to say that it is time that we took this matter seriously?
Sir Robert Neill
I understand the spirit in which the shadow Minister makes that point. He will know that the Justice Committee has said on a number of occasions that we cannot get justice on the cheap. I accept that we cannot write blank cheques, but the fact is that the proportion of total public spending that goes on the court system is a fraction of a fraction. We get justice for a very small amount of overall public spending in this country and a modest increase in that could be entirely justified, even within the existing budgets. With the increase in the Department’s allocation in the last spending, there is scope to do that. However, in terms of a greater reprioritisation of Government spending, more weight ought to be given to the importance of an effective justice system. It is a fundamental part of a democratic society and of the rule of law, and the magistracy are a key part of that.
I understand the spirit in which the shadow Minister spoke to a number of his amendments. I have sympathy with a lot of the thrust behind them and I hope that the Government will take them on board. I do not think that they need to be written in legislation, but there are issues relating to the way in which the single justice procedure operates. I am not against this—I think we have all seen what happens in magistrates courts when a bench sits in an entirely empty court going through a whole list of TV licence defaults or road traffic offences where nobody has attended. That is not a good use of time.
A fair point was raised with the Justice Committee about this issue in relation to open justice. More needs to be done to improve, for example, publication of the lists online so that people can be aware of what is happening and what can be done in relation to the publication of the results. That does not require legislation, but it should be invested in. Again, it is a small amount in the overall scheme of things.
I also share some of the concerns about the operation of the Common Platform. We have to accept that that is not necessarily a silver bullet; virtually no public sector IT system ever is. We have to continue to invest in it, but we cannot ultimately get around the fact that criminal justice—in fact, all justice systems—ultimately depends on the quality of the individuals in it. The technology is there to help, but ultimately, it is the good-quality lawyers, good-quality judges and good-quality probation professionals who help.
James Daly
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On the justice system and quality individuals, does he, like me, welcome Sir Christopher Bellamy’s report and recommendations, and would he encourage Front Benchers to take a very favourable view of them?
Sir Robert Neill
I know we are straying towards the edge of the topic, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think this is germane, because to make these reforms to the court system work, we have to invest in the professionals who operate in it. I welcome Sir Christopher’s report; it is immensely well researched and immensely well written. The truth is that within the uplift in the Department’s funding, there is scope, I say to the Minister, to implement Bellamy over the period of the spending round. I know that he has had constructive engagement already with Sir Christopher, and I urge him and his colleagues to continue to do so. We should thank Sir Christopher for his work.
I hope, therefore, that we will support the Government amendments. I hope that the Opposition will not press their amendments to a vote, but they raise legitimate issues that the Government should take on board. We all want to co-operate on having a court system that works. Efficiency should not be a matter of partisan debate, because justice must continue to be there, and the more settled arrangements we have across the House, the better confidence will be.
Finally, I express my thanks to magistrates. I have many friends who have served as magistrates. They do a very great public service, but the more magistrates we can get who are younger, the better. We have done pretty well on gender diversity, but we need to do more about recruiting magistrates from ethnic minority communities. That must continue to be a priority. I hope that that will be done by valuing the job; by giving them the resources, and that includes the physical resources and the buildings they sit in, many of which are pretty woeful; by a more imaginative approach to local justice—to where custody cases, for example, are not necessary and to listing cases nearer to people’s homes—by making it easier for witnesses to get to courts, because that was a concern that we raised in our report on access to justice some years ago; and by encouraging the best-quality people to go into the work that is done at the sharp end. That work, actually, is largely in the solicitors’ profession—I say that as a member of the Bar—because they are the people who do the police station call-outs, the early advice and the first appearances in front of magistrates. That is why Sir Christopher’s report, in that regard, is very important.
Anne McLaughlin
You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that most of the SNP’s objections are around judicial review, so I have only two amendments that I want to speak to and I can do that within a couple of minutes to give other people time to speak.
The online procedure rule committee will potentially cover wide areas of law and will sometimes make rules applicable in completely distinct legal jurisdictions. The SNP is concerned about the lack of representation on the committee from Scotland. Amendments 40 and 41 would therefore ensure that someone with knowledge and experience of the Scottish legal system will be appointed to the committee and that appointment should be made by the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland. I cannot see any reason to say no to that. That would address the imbalance in the representation of the Scottish legal system and allow the Government to keep up their pretence about respect for Scotland ahead of an independence referendum.
I say to Labour colleagues—I do so gently because the Labour Members present were on the Committee and we very much enjoyed working collaboratively with them—that I was a little disappointed that, with one notable exception, they abstained on amendments that would in effect have allowed Cart judicial reviews, or Eba judicial reviews as we call them, to remain in Scotland. I ask them to consider voting for this simple little measure so that we would have someone with experience and knowledge of the Scottish legal system to represent our system on the committee.
New clause 7 in my name would ensure the Bill’s compatibility with article 6 of the European convention on human rights: the right to a fair trial. To return to the example I gave earlier about the employment tribunal fees judgment in 2017, if the Bill had been in place when that landmark ruling was handed down, no one would have had fees refunded, everyone would have continued to pay the unlawful fees and, going forward, the Government could have simply changed the unlawful so that it was lawful: in other words, there would be no point whatsoever in taking the Government or other public bodies to court. The chilling effect would be widespread. That is surely a breach of article 6, which gives people the right to a fair trial and an effective judicial remedy. The new clause would allow judges a way to disapply the Bill if they considered there was a breach.
Let me give one more example of a group of people who may be refused their rights to a fair trial if the Bill passes: those who require legal aid. To secure legal aid, applicants must be able to demonstrate a tangible benefit if their case is successful. As I and others have demonstrated, if the Bill is enacted, there will regularly be no tangible benefit. If the Government are trying to keep people on average and low incomes away from being able to bring judicial reviews and access justice, they are doing a very effective job, but they should at least be honest about that. They have said and will keep saying that the Bill is compatible with article 6, but surely that begs the question: why do they continue to resist any amendment to ensure compatibility?
Andy Carter
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate in support of the Government’s new clause. The Minister and hon. Members will know that I continue to sit in magistrates courts; I am on the Merseyside bench at courthouses in Sefton in north Liverpool, in Liverpool city centre, in Birkenhead and occasionally in Chester and Crewe. I decided to do so because I felt that, as a Member of Parliament, it would be incredibly helpful and informative to continue to go into courts to understand the issues that magistrates and members of the legal profession face, as well as to hear and see those experiencing the criminal justice system from the other side.
In the last 10 years, I have seen tremendous change in the operation of the courts, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) mentioned, all of which has been designed to make the system more efficient. I think it is fair to say that some of the changes—closing court buildings in particular—have been pretty unpopular with members of the judiciary and members of the legal profession. After Dale Street magistrates court in the centre of Liverpool closed—a wonderful old building that had proper courts—and magistrates moved into the Queen Elizabeth II law courts where the Crown court is held, I wondered for a time what that would do to our magistrates courts. On reflection, knowing that four other buildings contained courthouses in Liverpool, I could completely understand why those decisions were taken. The waste that we were seeing within the system was unjustifiable. Our ability to reduce the amount of buildings and focus on developing technology and investing in courthouses to improve the facilities is critical. The ability to invest in the number of professional judges sitting as district judges has enabled a swifter and more effective process in the magistrates courts.
Many members of the magistracy have seen the number of magistrates in the courts continue to fall, which is one of the concerns. and I am pleased that the Government are taking steps to address that. Another area of concern was the centralisation of certain types of cases in certain courthouses. Let me give the House an example. On Merseyside, all motoring offences are now dealt with in Birkenhead, so if a magistrate regularly sits only in Liverpool city centre, they will never come across a motoring case. It can sometimes be a bit of an issue for magistrates to get their head around such issues if they are faced with an appeal, or an issue that has been referred back to their court, and they have not dealt with a motoring offence for some time. I say to the Minister that the ability for all magistrates to deal with all issues is really pertinent in the criminal court.
As the Minister said, magistrates play a fundamental role in our society, covering the overwhelming majority of criminal cases that appear in our courts. I want to join hon. and right hon. Friends in paying tribute to the 13,000 magistrates in courthouses across England and Wales, and to recognise and put on record the sacrifices that they have made throughout the covid pandemic. The overwhelming majority of courthouses stayed open. The magistrates, who were all volunteers, turned up to do their public duty. We should recognise the value that that has given to local society up and down the country. They have ensured that speedy justice has been delivered. I saw magistrates adapting and moving into Nightingale courts in Liverpool, in the historic St George’s Hall, where they continued to provide an outstanding service to the people of Merseyside and Cheshire.
The news this week that the Government are promoting a recruitment drive for 4,000 new magistrates is very welcome. They truly are the unsung heroes in our justice system. We need to ensure that people from every part of our society are represented in their ranks. I urge the Government to look at the recruitment process and the length of time it takes from applying to becoming a magistrate to actually sitting. I know many people who have applied to become a magistrate but who have fallen off during the process because it seems to be endless. The local advisory councils have historically been responsible for selecting magistrates. The Government need to consider that process carefully. The regular meeting of those advisory panels needs to be focused on.
I welcome the news that magistrates’ sentencing powers will be increased from six months to 12 months to help drive down waiting times and bring the criminal justice process to a speedier resolution. As the Minister and the Opposition spokesman mentioned, I have raised this in the House on numerous occasions, and I am delighted to see that it is now moving forward. I thank the Minister for taking this forward and making it happen. Ministry of Justice figures show that victims are waiting more than 600 days for justice after crimes are committed to the Crown court, a rise of more than 50% in the past year. Such delays increase the pressure on defendants, witnesses and victims of crime. The increase in sentencing powers will mean that less serious crimes can be heard much more speedily in magistrates courts, freeing up around 2,000 extra days in Crown courts.
James Daly
Based on his long experience in the magistracy, does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in sentencing powers is not going to have a great impact on the magistrates? They are not suddenly going to decide to send to prison everybody they previously would not have sent to prison because of that increase; it simply expands the sentencing range open to the court. I join my hon. Friend in praising our magistrates, who are experienced, common-sense people from their own communities who make decisions in the interests of justice.
Andy Carter
My experience is that the overwhelming majority of magistrates will do everything they can to avoid passing a custodial sentence, and if a custodial sentence is required, a primary consideration is to look to suspend that sentence. Of course, all magistrates, no matter their length of service, sit with an experienced legal adviser who guides them through every step of the process from a legal perspective, so I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it will not make a significant difference in that respect.
I know that the idea of changing magistrates’ sentencing powers has polarised opinions, with some saying that lay members of the judiciary should have no powers at all to impose custodial sentences. I am afraid I do not agree: magistrates play an important part in the sentencing process and the role of legal advisers in the courts ensures that the right sentence is given in the overwhelming majority of cases. The Minister mentioned that less than 1% of cases that go into magistrates courts appear in the Crown court for an appeal. I serve on a Crown court appeals panel and there are very few occasions on which I feel that something is wrong and the sentence given should be overturned.
The Minister mentioned that the increase in the retirement age for magistrates is covered in another Bill, but it is important that all these steps are taken together. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) introduced an excellent private Member’s Bill to address the issue, which the Magistrates Association has looked at carefully. Many good, experienced magistrates —presiding justices who chair the benches—are approaching 70 or have gone over that age but can contribute significantly to the work of the courts.
I am delighted that the Government have addressed the issue and look forward to welcoming back colleagues with whom I have served who can bring their experience back into the courthouse. We must remember that when new magistrates are recruited they can sit as wingers for the first five years of their time in the court, and it is important that they sit with experienced magistrates. If we did not address that issue and all the magistrates were reaching retirement age, we would have a serious problem in respect of experienced presiding justices in the magistrates courts, so I am pleased that that increase is to happen.
I wish to touch for a moment on the proposal to make changes to local justice areas. I recognise the importance of local justice and defendants, victims and witnesses not having to travel too far to attend a courthouse, but from a magistrate’s perspective there are some perverse issues with local justice areas. Let me give the House a couple of examples. I live on the border of Greater Manchester but operate in the Cheshire and Merseyside area. The courthouse in Greater Manchester is closer for me to get to, but because I am not in the Greater Manchester local justice area, I cannot sit in that court. That makes no sense at all, so I urge the Minister to look into new ways of thinking about local justice areas for magistrates so that they can sit in whichever courthouse is closest to them, no matter what local justice area might apply.
I was recently given another example by a magistrate who sits in Highbury but lives in Hertfordshire. His court in Highbury does not sit at the weekend—it has no operation at the weekend at all—so he is a working magistrate who is available to sit in the courthouse on Saturdays but, because he does not operate in the Hertfordshire local justice area, he is not able to sit at the weekend, when he is most available. It would be really valuable to create the flexibility for magistrates to sit in areas that are convenient for them and where they understand the pertinent local issues.
As I said, it is important that we recognise that defendants, victims and witnesses should not have to travel long distances and rack up travel costs. It is really important that justice is done locally and I would not want to see trials and cases listed for courts many miles away from the local area.
I want to talk briefly about technology. I have seen a number of different technologies used in courtrooms, and a number of different systems trialled—Common Platform has been mentioned—and one thing I have seen is that, whatever system is put in place, the legal advisers are brilliant at adapting how they operate, particularly in magistrates courts. I know that magistrates courts have had to make some changes recently and that some things are not quite as quick as they used to be, as legal advisers are recording cases at the same time. I think the Opposition spokesman talked about paper files. Any suggestion that we want to go back to using paper files in courthouses is really not the way forward. When I first started as a magistrate, we all had a big book containing all the sentencing guidelines. Everything is computerised now, and the ability to look up sentencing guidelines or to calculate fines on a laptop is really valuable. I think that all magistrates would recognise that, despite some early hesitancy, we now have a far better system.
My final comments on the changes in magistrates courts reflect the point I made earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about younger magistrates. The Young Magistrates Network has made some really good inroads into understanding the perspective of being a JP while holding down a full-time job. I welcome the extension of the retirement age, but we also need to think about how we have as wide a talent pool as possible. We should have on the bench hard-working members of society who are in employment. If we are getting to a situation where only retired people have the time to sit on the bench and are selected, that is really dangerous.
Importantly, I also think that parents should be encouraged to sit on the bench, particularly in youth courts, because the knowledge and experience of being a mum or dad can be so very valuable when talking to a young person appearing before a youth court.
Sir Robert Neill
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the youth courts. Does he agree that it is often not appreciated that the youth courts deal with very serious matters which, if they involved adult offenders, would undoubtedly go to the Crown court, and that requires not only the best possible lawyers, but the most experienced and diverse magistracy available to deal with those important cases, just as we would expect for a jury, with the same level of experience of the world that is brought to bear across the piece?
Andy Carter
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The sentencing powers of youth courts are already far greater than those in magistrates courts for criminal offences. I do not sit in youth courts, but I have observed them and I know that the conversation and dialogue that takes places between the bench and the young person who finds themselves in court is very different. We do need a really broad, balanced bench in the youth court. I encourage the Minister to look at what support he can give to encourage employed people and young people to come into the magistracy.
The Young Magistrates Network—it is co-ordinated by a young magistrate, Luke Rigg, who has done a marvellous job of looking at this area—has made some very good recommendations, which I think HMCTS is now considering as part of its review. We need to ensure that any recruitment campaign is targeted, using social media, in the right places. I encourage the Minister to look at the school governors’ network, which has done a really good job of talking to employers about the value that somebody who is a school governor can bring to their business. I think that magistrates can also bring a tremendous amount to a business.
Since coming to this House, I have pushed for a number of things to happen in relation to the magistracy. I have raised three or four issues many times, so it is absolutely brilliant that the Minister is putting them all in the Bill. It is like all my birthdays coming at once: everything is happening on the right day. I am very supportive of the Bill. I thank the Minister for engaging with the magistracy and the Magistrates Association, for listening to JP colleagues and for the progress that we are making.
Janet Daby
It is always a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Deputy Speaker. I fully support the Opposition amendments and the safeguards that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) outlined so eloquently, especially new clause 2 on online procedural assistance and new clause 3 on the review of the single justice procedure.
I will speak mainly about case backlogs and the online procedure rules in the Bill, but may I first say a few words in response to my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee? I was on the Justice Committee when it was looking at magistrates, and I remember many magistrates coming to meet us on the estate before covid.
I agree that we need to continue to appreciate our magistrates and make sure that they have the support they need to do their job extremely well. We also need to recognise that they have been vital during lockdown as key workers, in situations made extremely difficult by the backlogs that they have had to endure. I agree that we need younger magistrates and magistrates from more diverse backgrounds; as hon. Members may or may not know, there are also many judges from diverse backgrounds who want to be promoted up the ranks. We need to be mindful of ensuring a diverse bench of judges.
Mr Deputy Speaker, our
“criminal justice system is at breaking point.”
Those are not my words, but the words of Derek Sweeting QC, the then chair of the Bar Council. The backlog of criminal cases had pushed past 60,000 by June 2021 and is still increasing. To address it, we need to modernise our court systems. New technology can bring efficiency and help to address the backlog, but our drive to improve the court system should never come at the cost of safety or justice. For example, the online procedure rules set out in the Bill will enable more work to be completed remotely via the internet; one can see the immediate time-saving benefit, but the new rules risk excluding those without internet access or those who are less digitally literate. It is also vital that the online procedure rule committee that will shape the digital rules should reflect the diversity of Britain, which will help to protect the criminal justice system from further bias or any discrimination.
To ensure that all adequate safeguards are put in place, will the Minister commit to an independent pilot of the new technology before its general application? People in poverty do not necessarily have access to new technology, so we cannot take that access for granted or even assume that they are able to use the systems.
While it is important to explore modern solutions, we must not let that task distract us from the reality that our legal system simply needs more funding. There is no silver bullet to solve the crisis in our courts, and no magical technology will appear over the horizon to wipe away the vast number of backed-up cases. New technology and increased funding must go hand in hand. The National Audit Office recommended that £500 million of extra funding would be required between 2021 and 2024 to keep the backlog below 50,000. The Minister should follow that advice and promise that extra funding for our overburdened court systems.
James Cartlidge
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), who makes a very good point about diversity. The new recruitment campaign that we have launched for magistrates this week is very clearly focused on attracting a more diverse audience of potential participants to consider joining the bench.
In fact, the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), said that the increase in sentencing powers must not just be a backlog measure—and it is not. I will give a good example of that: on the day that we announced the change, I am reliably informed that “How do you become a magistrate?” was one of the trending searches on Google. The serious point is that the very fact of raising those powers shows our commitment to the magistracy and, in my view, will help to attract more people, because it shows how seriously the Government are taking it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to amendment 20, which has been selected for separate decision.
Clause 3
Automatic online conviction and penalty for certain summary offences
Amendment proposed: 20, page 5, line 34, at end insert—
“(e) the prosecutor is satisfied that the accused does not have any vulnerabilities and disabilities that impede the ability of the accused to understand or effectively participate in proceedings, having undertaken a physical and mental health assessment.”
This amendment would require that all accused persons considered for automatic online convictions are subject to a health assessment, and that only those who do not have any vulnerabilities or disabilities are given the option of being convicted online.—(Alex Cunningham.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
James Cartlidge
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has received careful and sometimes impassioned scrutiny from Members on both sides of the House, and I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed. Were I to summarise the Bill in a nutshell, I would say that its common thread was streamlining our courts, not least so that we can bear down on the backlog that has built up during the pandemic.
Joanna Cherry
The Minister says that the Bill has received careful scrutiny. Does he agree that it is unfortunate that this Bill, which seeks to limit the jurisdiction of the Court of Session in Scotland, to use his own words from his letter to me dated 11 November, has not received the scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament, within whose purview the jurisdiction of the Court of Session and judicial review lie?
James Cartlidge
I respect the hon. and learned Lady’s considerable expertise in these matters. I did write to her on that, and I think I answered that question earlier. We scrutinised the Bill in great detail in Committee, but I accept the strength of her view on that point.
Part 1 of the Bill strengthens judicial review, ensuring that it continues to serve justice and good public administration. This would not have been possible without Lord Faulks and his panel, who produced an independent review of administrative law. Their thorough work in this area is of great importance and laid the foundations for the measures in the Bill. As it stands, the Bill delivers on commitments that we made ahead of the last general election. It offers more flexibility to judges and puts more tools in the judicial toolbox.
The reforms in part 2 modernise and improve aspects of the court and tribunal system. The measures support court and tribunal recovery, and deliver improvements to the criminal justice system and to coronial processes. They build on the lessons of the pandemic and will increase the efficiency, adaptability and resilience of our justice system.
Today we have also included provision in the Bill for a power to vary the maximum sentence that the magistrates court may give for a single triable-either-way offence. This is part of our plan to extend the sentencing power of magistrates, so that we can keep more sentence hearings out of the Crown court, freeing up capacity to help us to tackle the backlog more quickly. That extension will help us to retain more cases in the magistrates courts, reducing the flow of cases into the Crown court, and will help to support recovery in the Crown court, where it is so important. It is estimated that it will save around 2,000 Crown court sitting days per year, which is the equivalent of 500 jury trials, allowing us to reduce the backlog more quickly.
I thank all hon. Members who contributed to debate on the Bill, particularly the members of the Bill Committee, during which time we made some clarificatory amendments to the Bill. I also thank the witnesses who joined us in Committee; the range of contributions from experts of considerable esteem greatly enriched our debates. Finally, it would be remiss of me not to thank the excellent officials from the Ministry of Justice, whose support has been invaluable throughout. I commend the Bill to the House.
Alex Cunningham
This has been an interesting Bill in process, although we still do not really see the need for many of the sweeping changes that the Government are proposing. I reiterate that the Minister has worked collaboratively with us, but sadly could not agree the changes that we proposed, which would have vastly improved this largely unnecessary Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for partnering me through the Bill, and my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for helping to hold the Government to account. Thanks, too, to all the others who were involved in the process.
Let me be clear: there is simply no need to change the judicial review process. The Ministry of Justice is trying to fix something that is not broken. The Government should instead be spending their time tackling the record backlog and protecting victims of serious crime. The Government’s changes to judicial review will have a chilling effect on justice, deterring members of the public from bringing claims against public bodies and leaving many other victims of unlawful actions without any redress.
The proposed reforms go beyond what was recommended by the expert panel set up to advise us, with no evidence to back up this overreach. The proposals are also based on figures that the Government have accepted were completely inaccurate. With the Government’s review of the Human Rights Act on the horizon, this is only the latest proposal to make it harder for ordinary members of the public to hold public institutions to account.
It is always useful to have a current example to illustrate what the impact of the Government’s draft legislation is likely to be. This afternoon—I hope the Minister is aware of this—there was a judicial review result, after disabled people challenged the Work and Pensions Secretary for failing to properly consult on the national disability strategy. The Government lost—yet again, another judgment lost. Does the Minister wish to intervene on me and tell me whether that particular challenge, and correction of an injustice, would have been possible if the provisions in the Bill had been in play today? Clearly, the Minister does not want to intervene.
We had high hopes for the coroner aspects of the Bill, but sadly it does not address the existing problems with the coroner service. Even more sadly, the Government have missed the opportunity to introduce automatic support for bereaved families at inquests where the state is represented. That is not justice; it is justice denied. On Report, I talked about the Government’s drive to apply more and more processes originally intended for adults, to children and young people. They set a precedent in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, failing time and again to safeguard one of our most vulnerable groups.
More generally, I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government are fighting shy of protecting vulnerable people from the provisions of the Bill. The Government have refused to instigate health checks and other measures to ensure that, when people do engage with online justice, they know exactly what they are doing and the potential consequences. Again, that is not justice.
We did not want to stand in the way of improving our courts system—we know it needs massive improvement—but overall, this is a bad Bill and we shall vote against it.
Sir Robert Neill
I have great respect for the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), but I am afraid I have to disagree with his characterisation of the Bill. It makes modest reforms, which seem sensible. Although I accept that the changes to judicial review are not uncontroversial, they are not a wholesale attack. I would not support them if they were. It is important to recognise that judicial review is fundamental. We need to get that on the record. It is an absolutely necessary part of the checks and balances. It can be refined, but it must never be undermined in principle. I do not believe that the Bill does that.
It is important that we properly fund the system that enables the courts to deal with judicial reviews and other matters. In fairness, there is a missed opportunity. I agree with the shadow Minister about funding for families of bereaved persons at inquests. The Justice Committee’s report advocated that and I hope that the Government will not give up on it, but revisit it because there is an equality of arms argument here. That is not a reason to vote against the Bill, but I think that the Government have missed a trick and I hope they will reconsider that.
The changes to the criminal justice system are worthwhile in themselves, but it is important that the Government did not go greatly beyond the report by Lord Faulks, whom we should congratulate again. I hope the Government will adopt the same approach to the review by Sir Peter Gross. Sometimes less is more.
Anne McLaughlin
I reiterate that we vehemently oppose much of the Bill. Nothing that has been said today or during the Bill’s passage has done anything to allay my fears or those of my party.
I thank the people who were involved in the proceedings because a lot of hard work went on. I thank hon. Friends in my party who spoke and my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) who sat on the Bill Committee with me. Despite my ticking-off earlier, I thoroughly enjoyed working with Labour colleagues on the Committee. The Clerks did a fantastic job. The Clerks in the Public Bill Office could not be more helpful in walking and talking us through each of the different stages. It does not matter how many times we do it—maybe it does matter, but at my stage, it is important that there is someone there to guide us, and I thank the Clerks. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for all his guidance and advice, the researchers from the SNP team, Aaron Lukas and Matt Hamill, and my own researcher, Michael Bannister, who I relied on heavily to get through much of this. I mean “get through” in terms of what we were talking about, not just getting through mentally, although he helped with that as well.
It is not over. We just need to look back to last week and what happened in the House of Lords. I never thought I would hear myself saying this, but come on the Lords and let us see what they will do with the Bill. [Laughter.] Maybe my friends on the Labour Benches will not be laughing at my next point, but there is another option for Scotland.
Scotland will soon be given the opportunity to take the option of saying, “If you’re going to disrespect the Scottish legal system, the Scottish Government and the people of Scotland, on you go, but we will take our own path and choose independence.” I do not expect many “Hear, hear”s from my Labour friends there, but Scotland has another way and we will choose that path. Of that I have no doubt.
Today I gave the Government the opportunity at least to pretend that they had a bit of respect for Scotland. They did not take it and they have just given us more grist to the mill. That is about the only thing I can thank them for.
Again, I thank everybody for the experience and we will see where the Bill goes from here.
Marco Longhi
Tributes should be paid to the judges and legal professionals who have kept our courts operational during the pandemic to the best of their ability, using technology to do so, much as we have during the last two years. It must be our priority to break through the backlog in the criminal courts, partly caused by the pandemic. Just yesterday, I received details of an awful assault in 2019 in my constituency that will be heard in court only in 2023. That delay prevents victims from receiving justice in a timely manner, does not allow closure and can delay access to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.
The Bill Committee, of which I was a member, heard evidence from specialist witnesses that implementing the Bill would save time and make our courts more efficient and effective. If I have learned anything during the pandemic, however, it has only entrenched my belief that the Opposition seek to hold us back: they voted against the Bill, they have just said that they will do so again, and they claim that there is no need for reform of judicial review. As with everything they do, there is dithering and delay. Our justice system and our constituents would be far worse off if they were in charge.
There is no area of the law that allows individuals, families, local government, business and so on to have more than two bites of the cherry in court—with one exception, namely illegal immigration appeals. That is another reason why the Opposition disagree with the Bill: because they are quite happy for the country to continue being a magnet for illegal immigration. When challenged in Committee, not once did an Opposition Member explain why illegal immigration should benefit from a third bite.
The Bill includes provision to ease the backlog in criminal courts and introduces measures to reduce the strain on magistrates courts. It also introduces a new online common platform, which will allow those who so wish to conduct all pre-trial proceedings online. Just as our parliamentary activities have benefited from being supplemented by virtual alternatives—I emphasise that they have been supplemented, not replaced—so can our legal sector benefit.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I will speak only briefly, but it is so important that I do. I was elected on the Government’s promise to take back control. With this Bill and the Nationality and Borders Bill, I think we are moving in the right direction to make sure that that happens.
I want to speak about two points. I had a third point to make about magistrates, but my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) has already spoken excellently about the issue.
Nick Fletcher
And at length, yes.
My first point is about allowing adult defendants to plead guilty to, and accept a pre-determined penalty for, minor offences online. Over the past two years, an increasing number of services, from schools to banking, have moved primarily online, at least temporarily. Although some people have found the online experience frustrating at times, and although in most cases I believe that in-person services should resume, in this instance I support going online.
My main point is about Cart JR. It is a question of court resources, but it also relates to an issue about which my constituents frequently contact me: immigration. Most judicial reviews against the upper tribunal relate to immigration cases. I understand that some cases are quite complex, but others appear to be no more than an abuse of the judicial process through endless, meritless appeals. As the Justice Secretary has noted in previous debates on the Bill, the success rate is hardly above 3%—an appalling statistic.
It is difficult to defend the UK’s immigration system to my constituents as fair and effective when they see in the news that hundreds of people arrive via the channel every week, yet the processes that we have in place seem to allow anyone to stay, regardless of how well-founded any claim is. The message that they are getting is that it does not matter whether someone is a genuine refugee: as long as they are prepared for a protracted legal battle, with legal aid at the taxpayer’s expense, they can stay for years, if not indefinitely. As I know from my casework, that does not incline my constituents to see all asylum applicants as potential refugees; on the contrary, it leads them to see all asylum applicants as willing to abuse the legal system. That perception may not be well founded, but it is understandable.
I am sure that such behaviour can be justified, but when the entire judicial system is under unprecedented pressure after nearly two years of the pandemic, it is especially ridiculous. We need every hour of the judiciary’s time that we have. I therefore commend the Bill and will happily support it.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Points of Order
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are reports that Sue Gray will deliver her report to the Prime Minister this evening. Can you offer me reassurance that Members will have advance sight of the report before any statement is made in the House?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I have not been informed as to when the Sue Gray report will be published, although I understand that the Twittersphere is on fire with speculation. Timings of statements are a matter for the Government, but I know that Mr Speaker will want to ensure that the proper processes are followed.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that earlier today, the Department for Work and Pensions lost a case at the High Court that found that the Government’s national disability strategy is unlawful. Have you had notice that the Government intend to make a statement on that matter or should we expect Ministers to continue to ignore the concerns of disabled people?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for notice of it. I have not been given any information that any statements will be made this evening, but should that alter, Members will be notified in the usual way.
Deferred Divisions
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
That at this day’s sitting, Standing Order 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Lucy Frazer relating to the Down Syndrome Bill.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Question agreed to.
Down Syndrome Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Down Syndrome Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money provided by Parliament.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Business without Debate
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Petitions
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I rise to present a petition organised by Mr Anthony and Mrs Susan Wilson from Codnor in my constituency, who were moved to do this after they lost their cat in a road traffic accident.
The petition says:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Notes that there are approximately 12.2 million cats kept as pets in the UK; further that around 230,000 cats are killed as the result of a road traffic accident every year, according to the most recent statistics available; and declares that cats should be granted the same legal protections that dogs are given if they are involved in an accident with a motorist.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that motorists are required to report accidents involving cats to the police.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002706]
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition relating to community energy projects on behalf of my constituents, and I am very grateful to Neil Barnes of Linlithgow for the work he has done in promoting this petition. This is absolutely essential to achieve the transition to net zero and to enable a green recovery.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to follow the recommendations of the Environmental Audit Committee and reallocate existing funding to better support community energy projects through extending and expanding the Rural Community Energy Fund, as a minimum, to include urban, heat, retrofit and energy efficiency projects. The House of Commons should also urge the Government to reallocate funding to create a community equivalent to the Contracts for Difference scheme in order to give more certainty to potential investors. Petitioners also request the House to ask the Government to develop a Community Energy Strategy that recognises the importance of community energy and puts in place long-term policy support to enable community to be the local powerhouse of the net zero transition.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk,
Declares that community energy is the essential grass-roots ally to obtain the consent and participation of the people in the urgent energy transition to net-zero and to invent and deliver essential local climate solutions, enabling the Green Recovery; further that, since the removal of the Feed-in Tariff, Export Tariff, Social Investment Tax Relief and the increase in VAT for solar and batteries, community energy struggles to make a business case to become active; further that the Smart Export Guarantee is insufficient in re-mobilising community energy and provides no certainty to investors; notes that the Rural Community Energy Fund is set to end in April 2022; declares that national growth funds are often closed or not applicable to community energy groups; further that the Net Zero Strategy contained neither the promised plan for community energy nor the practical support measures to harness its potential and enable the growth of community energy as recommended by the Environmental Audit Committee; further that a new Community Energy Booster would allow charities, development trusts and social enterprises to plan, develop, install and operate local renewable energy, low-carbon heat, retrofit and energy efficiency systems and solutions, working as equal partners with industry, SMEs and local authorities; further that this would deliver local jobs, reskilling, education and training opportunities, significant carbon savings and huge social and community benefits which would not be provided by commercial projects; and further that communities simply need a fair playing field to compete with commercial developers.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to follow the recommendations of the Environmental Audit Committee and reallocate existing funding to better support community energy projects through extending and expanding the Rural Community Energy Fund, as a minimum, to include urban, heat, retrofit and energy efficiency projects. The House of Commons should also urge the Government to reallocate funding to create a community equivalent to the Contracts for Difference scheme in order to give more certainty to potential investors. Petitioners also request the House to ask the Government to develop a Community Energy Strategy that recognises the importance of community energy and puts in place long-term policy support to enable community to be the local powerhouse of the net zero transition.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002707]
Environment Agency and Bromford Estate
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I am very grateful for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the disgraceful story of the prevarication, delay and disrespect from the Environment Agency towards the good residents of the Bromford estate in my constituency of Birmingham, Hodge Hill. The upshot of this terrible saga is that the overrunning of flood defence work denied those from one of the poorest communities in Birmingham access to their public park for two years throughout the length of lockdown. This estate has one of the worst health outcomes in the west midlands, yet throughout the pandemic and throughout this health crisis the green space that was the preserve of our community was fenced off and denied to residents and their children.
I know that the Minister will have studied her brief and will have come to the House as an expert on the Bromford estate, but should that not be the case, let me just very quickly set the context for the House. The Bromford estate is built along the great River Tame, where once its mills were recorded in the Domesday Book. It was of course the home of the Birmingham racetrack until the 1960s, whereupon, to provide greater housing for Birmingham, the Bromford estate was built on new town principles along what is actually the longest bridge in the country—the great M6 viaduct. However, for years the estate has suffered neglect, and I have made it a mission for my time in the House to campaign for the investment that it deserves.
We started with £10 million-worth of new health centre in the Firs, towards the east end of the estate. We were successful in bringing in more than £1 million of big local funding over a long period of many years to help build up community initiatives. We have now secured tens of millions of pounds for a transformation of housing on the estate, and it will also be home to the new retrofitting pilot which, as chair of the East Birmingham inclusive growth taskforce, I have helped to deliver.
We still have miles to go if this proud estate is to gain the investment and the attention that it deserves, but we are blessed with the most extraordinary wealth of community leaders and community activists who are, together, determined to renew the bonds that connect the neighbours on the estate. They are people like Tim Evans of Worth Unlimited, which has transformed youth work on the estate; people like Paul Wright of the Open Door Community Foundation, which has created, in The Hub, a real anchor for the community; people like Phil Howkins, one of the driving forces behind the new pantomimes we have at Christmas; people like Flo Parkes, Clare Maclean, Linda Dunkley and her daughter Charlotte Dunkley. They have together not only done the good, hard work of community-building, whether it involves pop-up parks or organising festivals, but created a vision for the estate—the Bromford village vision of a place where we get the investment we deserve, and renew the sense of community.
That is why we gave such a warm welcome to the prospect of Environment Agency investment in the flood defences along the River Tame. The River Tame does not flood very often; it floods, to a serious level, perhaps once in a century, but that will obviously have a devastating impact on the communities of the Bromford and, indeed, Castle Vale. The flood defences were important, and they help us to unlock new housing development, which in turn is a catalyst for renewal. However, we wanted to bring the Environment Agency into a real partnership with Birmingham City Council and our community organisations, so that this was not money dropped in from above, with the investment made and agencies then just disappearing. We wanted a true partnership in which we worked together as a team to overhaul the estate with the investment that was provided. That was the dream, but the reality was very different. With the House’s indulgence, I will, very quickly, share the chronology.
The first details were confirmed to us on 22 June 2020. That is when we got a green light from Birmingham City Council to co-invest alongside the new flood defence work. The completion date was to be March 2021; that was the promise. It was at about that time that the Environment Agency told us that it would remove the under-12s play park in Bromford Drive. We were pretty unhappy about that, but we were given an assurance that new parks would be provided within the next two years. The next update was just nine months later, but we were then told that the entire project was running 12 months late. New project sponsors were brought in. There were clearly a host of problems. I was advised by the city council that
“The new Environment Agency Project Team have freely acknowledged communication has to date been inadequate”.
That was putting it mildly. At that point, we were promised that the existing play facilities would be reopened in late July 2021.
We also learnt at that time—this was just as bad—that the council would not have unfettered access to the housing development sites, as it had been promised, because the Environment Agency had decided to use the site as a compound for the work that it was undertaking. As a result, the council had to brief me that
“The delays to the flood defence works will delay the Housing development programme and the associated play area and open space improvements.”
A few days later, on 1 April 2021, local residents were sent a letter stating:
“We had a break in our embankment construction work”.
The work, the letter said, would restart shortly, but
“To allow us to do this safely we will need to close the Skate park in addition to the play park. The park will be closed for approximately 7 weeks”.
The letter promised that it would be reopened in time for the 2021 summer holidays.
The next communication was dated 14 July 2021. We now learnt that the Environment Agency had issued an updated programme advising that the flood defence works would not be substantially completed until the end of March 2022, and it would not be returning control of housing sites before the end of October 2021. That knock-on cost pushed back the housing proposals by a couple of years and put up the cost by 10% to £3.2 million.
At that point, in exasperation, I started tabling questions to the Minister. In answer to my written question of 17 September 2021, the promise came that the Environment Agency was
“fully committed to completing this scheme at the earliest opportunity”—
and the Minister said that the Environment Agency ensured that the multi-use games area and skate park were going to be handed back, along with the under-12s play area at the start of the summer holidays. But the play park is still closed. I then had to convene everybody on 5 November 2021 to make sure that we had a 10-point plan that everybody had signed up for, and we now have an agreement that the park will be made available in the spring of 2022.
This is a terrible saga of the mismanagement of a project. We have good people such as Jimmy and Imky on the ground from the Environment Agency, but frankly, they are clearly good people in bad systems. I have asked the Minister to come to the House today because, in my letters to the chief executive of the Environment Agency, the answers were inadequate, and they were answered by a junior official in the agency. Frankly, if that is the way that the Environment Agency is going to treat Privy Counsellors in Britain’s second city, what hope, frankly, do residents have of getting a straight answer?
Our asks are very simple. First, we would like the Minister to give us an apology—just to say sorry for this saga and the denial of our park to our children for the past two years during lockdown. If we can build a Commonwealth games stadium in Birmingham on time and on budget, the Environment Agency should be able to bring a play park to completion on schedule. Secondly, we would like compensation in the form of new investment in new parks on the estate. Thirdly, we would like a commitment that work under way on the timetable now agreed will not be delayed. We want it specified not in terms of a season, but to the nearest date. Fourthly, we would like a commitment to transforming communications with our community. We have that from the local staff from the Environment Agency, but I want to be sure that we get the back-up from the higher-ups in the Environment Agency, so that that commitment is made real, and I would like the chief executive of the Environment Agency to come to the Bromford estate and actually front this up in person with the residents of the Bromford. Finally, we would like to know how on earth this has all cost £26 million of taxpayers’ money, and we would like to know, please, how much extra is being shelled out because of the delays.
You will forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, for feeling strongly about this, but while we have had a Prime Minister partying in Downing Street, the children of my constituents have been denied a play park on their estate during covid. I do not think that is acceptable and I am here to say to the House that we are not having it. I am sorry that we have had to ask the Minister to come to the House. It is a last resort and a measure that I have taken in desperation, because I am determined that the people of the Bromford are going to be treated like first-class citizens and get the respect and the investment they deserve from this Government. I speak for the whole of the Bromford tonight when I say that we are looking forward to answers from the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) is somewhat—I think “frustrated” is too gentle a word, is it not? I can understand his anger—I think it is that really—and I say to him that my door is always open to speak to colleagues. It does not matter what side of the House they are on, and I think my noble Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), would vouch for that. I am always opening to hearing about where there are problems and frustrations. I know that he has written to me, but as far as I understand it, he has not come to me face to face and, in a way, perhaps he should have—but there we go. I am pleased to hear from him tonight, speaking up as the MP for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, and actually, it has been great to hear about the people from his constituency who have that vision for his area. It is always good to hear about people working locally to make their area better and I congratulate him on the work that he is doing. I certainly understand the frustration about the issue of having no park, particularly during lockdown, and I will come to that later.
I will focus on the flood risk side of things, because that is what I am responsible for as a Minister. I am not the Communities and Local Government Minister, a role that is very much about the community side of things, the developments and so forth. I will focus on that, but it obviously all links into what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.
Flood and coastal risk is a priority for the Government. We are well aware of the impacts that flooding can have on communities, homes and businesses. With that in mind, the Government have doubled flood funding in our latest programme to £5.2 billion to support 2,000 new flood defence programmes, which will protect 336,000 properties from flooding and coastal erosion—I just wanted to put that on the record. In England, the statutory responsibility for managed flood risk falls to risk management authorities such as the Environment Agency and lead local flood authorities, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is well aware.
The Environment Agency works with the lead local flood authority to manage surface flood water risks through strategic planning and supporting the development of projects—particularly when it comes to making business cases—and to access Government flood and coastal erosion risk management grant-in-aid funding and regional flood and coastal committee local levy funds. The lead local flood authorities and county and unitary councils have the lead operational role in managing the risk of flooding from surface water, ground water and ordinary water courses. They are responsible for ensuring that the risks are identified and managed as part of a local flood risk management strategy.
Let me turn now to the Bromford estate. I pass on my sympathies to those in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency who have been impacted by the delay in the construction of the flood defences that run through the estate. I understand how frustrating that has been, particularly the impact that that has had on vital recreational spaces. I believe that there has also been a great deal of anxiety about the construction work around the flood schemes and other significant developments. While the right hon. Gentleman was talking about lots of other benefits in his constituency, he did highlight the fact that, when flood defences go up, they can have lots of other spin-offs. He is right about that. Once the defences are in place and the community is protected, other spin-offs happen. For example, I have seen that happen in Lytham St Annes.
In the summer, I did a whole lot of flood work all around the country—I could even have come to the right hon. Gentleman’s area had I known what was happening there. I saw for myself how investment in defences brought with it safety and security for business. New businesses were attracted to the area. Even tourism improved, with people being attracted to the area. It just improved the whole feel of the place, and I think that that is one of the things that he is getting at. There will be a spin-off when all this is sorted out, and, trust me, it will be sorted out.
The Bromford flood risk management scheme aims to reduce the risk of flooding from the River Tame, extending over 4.5 km from the River Rea, through Bromford and Castle Vale, and downstream to the M42 crossing at Water Orton. The Government are investing £27 million on the scheme—a huge amount of money—which is expected to be completed by winter 2023. However, things will happen before that.
The scheme will see more than 1,500 homes and 42 non-residential properties better protected from the risk of flooding. I know that the place has not been flooded for a long time, but the strategy that has been done shows that the area is at risk, so the scheme is really important in protecting those homes and businesses. It will then unlock new housing development projects worth more than £40 million. That is a big commitment that we have made to the right hon. Gentleman’s area.
The right hon. Gentleman highlighted the fact that the completion of the embankment area of the scheme has taken much longer than it should have done, but that was because of an emergency. I am sure that he is aware of this, but a wall collapsed in two sections of the defence area. It had to be repaired before the new flood defence work could continue. It was very complicated. I have quizzed the EA about that, which I am sure he will understand. In addition, as with loads of construction works all over the country, there has been a squeeze on materials, poor weather and third-party landowner issues to be sorted out. That has had an impact on progress, and it has been complicated. The Environment Agency has committed more funding to complete the scheme and deal with the various challenges the project has faced. The contractor’s senior management have also provided commitments to improve delivery confidence—I think that is really what the right hon. Gentleman is after as well—and they are fully committed to completing the scheme at the earliest opportunity.
Rebecca Pow
Perhaps I could give the right hon. Gentleman the dates before he intervenes. I have spoken with the Environment Agency, and it has assured me that completion of the embankment works running through the estate is expected in May, except for one small section—the Bromford turning circle, which is due to be completed by September. Large sections of the embankment may be complete prior to May, and the Environment Agency intends to hand back these sections earlier to Birmingham City Council, on contractual completion. Shall I go on to the play park?
Rebecca Pow
Let us go on to the play park, because that is obviously crucial. The Environment Agency is working closely with the council’s parks team on the under-12s play area, which the parks team is aiming to reopen in June, as the right hon. Gentleman said. The EA is committing £200,000 towards the refurbishment of the play park. I hope he welcomes that. I know it is a little late, but it is under way and I am sure it is going to be a play park well worth waiting for—I hope it is. I will now give way.
Liam Byrne
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She has just slipped the timetable back two months on the assurance that I was given on 5 November, so I hope that she will be able to re-check that with her officials. The broad point I wanted to make is that the project management arrangements have been among the worst I have ever seen. For example, the collapse of the wall was communicated to me only about two months ago, long after the fact. May I therefore urge her to ensure that she is doing everything she can to ensure that integrated project management arrangements on such complex schemes are much tighter and that communication with local residents affected by the works is an awful lot better?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I could not agree more. Communication is essential in such projects, and clearly this is a complicated one. I promise that I will check that that is going to happen in future and why it did not happen in the past. As he is the MP, and one so involved in his local community, it would be right to involve him.
I have spoken to the EA and it gets the message about engaging with the community. In its defence, covid and the lockdown did not help, because it had to put on hold a lot of its normal face-to-face engagement. I have had good reports around the country of that face-to-face engagement on the ground, particularly when there is or has been flooding, or when it is trying to advise on what flood defences one might put in one’s house. The EA is really good at that, so I am sad to hear what he says, but I think it was partly affected by covid when the EA paused its face-to-face engagement. It tells me that that has been ramped back up again and it also kept in touch electronically, by post and through newsletters.
Following the Government’s easing of covid safety measures, the EA met community members on 5 November 2021—I believe the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that date—and more recently. I believe it met him on 21 January, so I hope that relations are improving.
The EA is committed to regular engagement with the community, and I urge it to ensure that it keeps to that. I would be pleased if it would let me know how that is going. It has said that it will continue to attend the quarterly board meetings organised by the council, either virtually or in person, and the quarterly partnership meetings once they are resurrected by the local community group, Worth Unlimited. I am sure the right hon. Member and his fellow councillors welcome the investment in the flood defences to which I have referred. They will bring multiple benefits for his area when they are completed.
Our ambition is to create a nation that is resilient to flood risk and coastal erosion. We are working to manage and mitigate the impact of flooding at pace and continuing to implement our flood risk management policy statement and the EA’s national strategy. We are working across the country on projects far and wide, and I really look forward to hearing about that park being opened and the projects coming to fruition. I hope that this has given the right hon. Member a little bit of reassurance, and I will be very happy if he wants to keep me posted.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Trade Union (Levy Payable to the Certification Officer) Regulations 2022
Draft Trade Union (Power of the Certification Officer to impose Financial Penalties) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
May I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings and to maintain social distancing as far as possible, in line with current guidance from the House of Commons Commission. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That test can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Similarly, officials in the Gallery should communicate electronically with Ministers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Trade Union (Levy Payable to the Certification Officer) Regulations 2022.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Trade Union (Power of the Certification Officer to Impose Financial Penalties) Regulations 2022.
The Minister will speak to both statutory instruments. At the end of the debate I will put the Question on the first motion and then ask the Minister to move the second motion formally.
Paul Scully
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
The purpose of the regulations is to enact the reforms made by the Trade Union Act 2016 to the powers of the certification officer—the regulator of trade unions and employers’ associations. The regulations were commented on by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the Lords in its 25th report, on grounds of policy interest. Before I explain the content of the regulations, it is important that I provide Members with some context to the reforms.
Unions play an important role in effective industrial relations. They also play a significant role in our workplaces and in wider society. There is therefore a legitimate public interest in trade unions running their affairs according to what is required of them. It is necessary that they have a responsive and diligent regulator. It is vital that we all have confidence that those affairs are conducted properly. The provisions in the 2016 Act are about proportionate and effective regulation. We are bringing the current powers of the certification officer up to date with the situation that we accept as completely normal in other sectors.
The 2016 Act brings in three reforms to the role of the certification officer. The first enhances the CO’s investigatory powers. Those reforms were implemented in commencement regulations made in December 2021, and they will commence in April. As they are not the subject of the regulations before us, I will only briefly explain the Government’s intentions.
The current system largely relies on union members bringing complaints to the CO—for example, on the conduct of elections. The 2016 Act gives the CO the same powers to investigate all breaches that she currently holds for financial matters and the register of members. That will enable her to act without having to rely on a complaint from a member. That is a wholly reasonable power for a regulator.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
There are at least two Members present who served on the Trade Union Bill. Can the Minister remind us who can make a complaint to the certification officer?
Paul Scully
I will come back to that in my closing remarks. The CO will be able to take up her own views on a matter when there is a breach. It is a wholly reasonable power for a regulator and works on the basis of similar regulators.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a 50-year member of Unite and its previous unions. How will unions protect against vexatious complaints from individuals who have a political axe to grind, whether from the extreme right or the Conservative party, as opposed to dealing with the members, who are supposed to be the people most concerned?
Paul Scully
This is not a political move. This is not politicising the regulator at all. The regulations are simply designed to bring the regulator in line with other regulators.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
The Minister may say that, but the regulations are effectively a tax on trade unions. Does he recognise that other bodies do not pay a similar tax? Broadcasters do not pay tax for Ofcom, and data processors do not pay tax for the Information Commissioner. Why does he feel that the regulations bring the trade unions in line with other sectors?
Paul Scully
I am glad the hon. Lady has brought the focus to the regulations rather than the wider scope of the 2016 Act, which was discussed in Committee and during the passage of previous regulations. On finances, the work of the certification officer at the moment is funded through fines and other fees but the regulations will wrap them up in a levy, which will be proportionate and affordable, because we responded to the consultation and made some changes accordingly.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite common for industry to pay for its regulator? For example, the Financial Conduct Authority is funded directly by the banks, as are other financial schemes. That is quite a common way of funding such activities.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The regulations in no way attack; they are simply designed to fund the work of the regulator. Most regulators get their costs paid for by the people they regulate. That is eminently reasonable.
The regulations we are considering today bring into effect the second and third reforms set down in the 2016 Act, relating to financial penalties and the levy. We consulted separately on both reforms in 2017 and we conducted a further engagement exercise on the levy last year. The majority of respondents to both consultations and the further engagement exercise were trade unions. I know that they are concerned about the measures, as we have heard, but we have listened to their concerns and I will explain the measures in the regulations.
Chris Stephens
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. On the consultation in 2017, we should note that there have been two general elections since then, so why are the Government proceeding now?
Paul Scully
Because we have proceeded as quickly as we can, given the circumstances of parliamentary time. We wanted to make sure that, in response to the consultation, we could reflect the views of the trade unions by making some changes to the regulations. I will outline them in a second, but I repeat that this is the right time to be making the changes.
Under the financial penalties regulations, the certification officer’s enforcement powers are strengthened by allowing her to impose such penalties against organisations that breach their statutory obligations. The maximum amount of penalty will vary by the type of obligation breached and will be banded into three groups to take account of the severity of the obligation breached. That approach found support during the consultation.
The most important statutory obligations required of trade unions relate to political funding, the proper conduct of union elections and personnel propriety considerations. Those obligations are serious matters and I believe that the maximum penalty of £20,000 should be made available to the certification officer. That is in line with the penalties imposed by other bodies, such as the Electoral Commission.
For other failures of statutory governance requirements, a lower level of maximum penalty, £10,000, is appropriate, and that includes the requirement to keep the membership register up to date. Where breaches do not relate to failures of governance as a whole but to requirements to provide information, comply with investigatory requirements or breaches of internal union laws, the regulations limit such fines to a maximum of £5,000.
John Spellar
I apologise for taking the Minister back to the previous issue, but I have quickly scanned the explanatory notes. How will the levy be distributed between trade unions and employer associations? On what basis?
Paul Scully
I will talk about the distribution in a second.
The regulations also provide for a reduction in the maxima by 50%--bearing in mind that we are talking about the financial penalties—for unions whose membership is under 100,000. That means that no small or medium-sized unions will pay more than £10,000, £5,000 or £2,500, depending on the type of obligations breached. The Government took heed of consultation responses that charging interest would unduly penalise small unions, so we decided not to charge interest for the late payment of penalties.
The Trade Union (Levy Payable to the Certification Officer) Regulations 2022 provide for a levy on unions and employers’ associations to fund the certification officer’s work. It is no longer acceptable for the taxpayer to fund the regulation of these organisations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said, a levy is one of the ways used to fund such regulators. The regulations establish a framework for the levy that is equitable, affordable, predictable and simple.
First, the time that the certification officer spends on each of the different categories of regulated organisations, which are non-federated trade unions, federated trade unions, non-federated employers’ associations and federated employers’ associations—
Chris Stephens
We know from the Trade Union Bill Committee that the net cost of the certification officer’s work was about £500,000. Can the Minister tell us what it is today?
Paul Scully
I will go through the structure in a little more detail shortly.
To make the levy equitable, the certification officer will be able to broadly apportion the levy between the different types of organisations according to how much time she spends on them.
Secondly, I know that many hon. Members and unions are concerned about the affordability of the levy. That is why the certification officer must exempt lower-income organisations from the levy entirely. No organisation will pay more than 2.5% of its annual income, as set out in its annual return to the certification officer.
Thirdly, it is important that a levy is predictable, so the Government will continue to fund the cost of any internal inspectors that the certification officer hires, as the use and cost of those can vary significantly. That was discussed during consideration of the Trade Union Act 2016. For the same reason, the Government will also fund the cost of any external legal advice that the certification officer may seek. That was not identified during consideration of the Act, but the Government believe that that approach will allow for a fairer levy.
Finally, the Government have taken steps to ensure that the levy is simple and transparent. The certification officer will need to aim to ensure that income from the levy matches expenditure over a three-year period, as well as explain how she calculated the amount of levy each organisation is charged. A number of the certification officer’s existing fees will be abolished and subsumed into the levy. That will be the subject of separate regulations, which will be made under the negative procedure, and we intend them to come into force at the same time as the levy.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that as the instrument stands there will be no cap on the amount of the levy and it could well run into millions of pounds?
Paul Scully
The amount of levy paid will be capped to 2.5% of the union’s income, and it is the certification officer’s work that is being paid for—
Imran Hussain
Sorry, perhaps the Minister did not understand the point I am making. Does he accept that there is no cap in the instrument on the overall levy that the certification officer can charge and it could well run into millions of pounds? It will be completely at the discretion of the certification officer.
Paul Scully
The certification officer’s work will be charged accordingly, and the levy will be distributed at a level that is capped for each union and employers’ association. It will be for the certification officer to demonstrate what she has been doing in that regard and how those costs are broken down.
In response to requests by trade unions during consultation, two fees will be preserved—the fee for listing as an organisation and the fee for a union to be granted a certificate of independence. The costs of dealing with those applications will not be recoverable under the levy.
I recognise that these are significant changes for the organisations involved, albeit that they are the clear and required implementation of the Trade Union Act 2016. That is why we announced the reforms in June 2021, to allow trade unions and employers’ associations time to prepare before they are implemented in April 2022. That also allowed the certification officer time to put the systems in place to determine and charge the levy.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I declare that I am a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. That body does similar things to those that a union might do: it represents its members, makes representations to Government and ensures that the regulated activities that we undertake as members are properly monitored and controlled. There has never been any issue that the Government should somehow pick up the bill for those things—
Craig Mackinlay
Or the taxpayer, absolutely. So I am quite surprised that there is huffing and puffing over this. The Minister has made it clear that 2.5% is the maximum. Has he calculated whether, if that 2.5% maximum levy, which I doubt will apply in many cases, were applied across the income of all the trade unions that are registered, it would cover the true cost of the certification officer’s work, or would there still be a shortfall that taxpayers were expected to make up?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend makes some good points. As I say, there are exceptional cases when the taxpayer will be paying, in terms of the consultants that the certification officer may pay and the legal advice that she may require, because that will give unions and employers’ associations the certainty that they need. That is part of the proportionate approach that we have taken. None the less, the distribution that I have here, which I can share with the hon. Member for Bradford East, who asked about it earlier, assumes an estimated total levy of £1.15 million for the next financial year, based on the work that the certification officer has been doing.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I may have missed this, but can the Minister confirm that any fines that are levied go back into the income of the certification officer, so that they subsidise future levies from unions?
Paul Scully
I will respond to that in my concluding remarks so that I am accurate for my hon. Friend.
The two sets of regulations will modernise the role of the certification officer so that she can continue to function as an effective regulator of trade unions and employers’ associations. It is not about constraining the ability of the unions and employers’ associations to do their valuable work. The certification officer has always operated independently of Government and that will continue.
These reforms are about giving the certification officer the tools she needs to do the job as effectively as possible and ensure that the taxpayer no longer foots the whole bill, but that unions and employers’ associations that can afford—
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
How is this proportionate, given that in her annual report for 2021 the certification officer stated that she investigated only 34 complaints—one complaint for every 200,000 union members—and no enforcement was taken?
Paul Scully
The certification officer has had a number of complaints. She has investigated some and dismissed some. Yes, only one enforcement was taken, but that is not the sole purpose of her job. She does not look at that single case; there is a lot of work that leads up to that. As I say, this is proportionate. If she is not doing that much work, then the levy will be cheaper because she will not have that much to do. The levy is to cover the cost of the work. The certification officer is not having holidays to the Bahamas and making a juicy profit out of this. The levy is just covering the cost of the regulator. That is what is proportionate about it and why it is appropriate for the regulator to do it, rather than the taxpayer.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Davies. We have had five speakers from the Opposition and only one has declared an interest as being a member of a trade union. I thought it was necessary to declare an interest, especially in this debate, and I seek clarification on that.
The Chair
It is a matter for each individual member to declare their interests as they see fit. It is not for me to tell them whether they should or should not make a declaration, but for them to decide if they have an interest that they feel they need to declare.
John Spellar
Further to that point of order, Mr Davies. Should Members on the Government side also declare whether they are members of trade unions?
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Davies. Following on from the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, I have not yet had a chance to speak but I am more than happy to declare that I am a member of the NASUWT and was a trade union representative in the last two schools in which I worked.
The Chair
I am sure we are all grateful for that. If we could get back to the debate, I think we would all be very grateful.
Paul Scully
In my concluding remarks I will try to pick up any questions that I have not answered. I commend both statutory instruments to the Committee.
Imran Hussain
I first declare an interest as a proud member of Unite the union, Unison and GMB.
For well over 100 years since the founding of modern organised labour, trade unions have been at the forefront of improving the pay, terms and working conditions of ordinary people across our country. It is because of the struggle of trade unions, even in the face of opposition, obstruction and oppression at the hands of big business and Governments, that working people today have statutory sick pay, which means they are not left completely out of pocket when illness strikes, a minimum wage, which helps to provide a basic floor against poverty, and high safety standards, which ensure that dangerous work places are no longer the death traps they once were.
Yet despite the immense improvements that they have made for working people over the past century, our trade unions are as important today as they have ever been. Working people are still exploited by unscrupulous employers and our trade unions still provide the only real bulwark against even greater exploitation. That has been made all too clear over the last two years of the coronavirus pandemic, with bad bosses, for example, using the dishonest tactics of fire and rehire to take advantage of the workforce.
It seems, however, that the Government do not recognise the value and importance of our trade unions.
Chris Stephens
Is the shadow Minister not as curious as I am that, four years since the Government started a consultation and after four years of promises of an employment Bill, there is no employment Bill, but there is now this levy being imposed on trade unions? Does that not say all about how this Government view workers’ rights in this country?
Imran Hussain
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and adds to the point that I was beginning to make. It is clear that the Government do not recognise or value the importance of our trade unions. Instead, as we see with the measures before us today, they choose to attack rather than support those who are fighting for working people.
Jonathan Gullis
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concerns that trade unions such as the National Education Union were found potentially to have broken the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for the £505,000 spent in the 2019 general election on adverts that were overtly party political, attacking the Conservative Government, which would obviously have disenfranchised Conservative members whose hard-earned money had been paid into that trade union?
Imran Hussain
It is clear that the hon. Gentleman misses the point. There are regulators today and, while I do not know about that specific example, breaches of any kind should of course be investigated, but that is not the matter before us today. This is not a new body that is being set to investigate breaches, so I think the hon. Gentleman will perhaps understand that his point is not relevant to the debate today.
John Spellar
It might be helpful if we heard whether the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North or other members of the union actually made a formal complaint to the certification officer.
Imran Hussain
That is a matter for the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, and I will give way if he wants to respond—or perhaps not.
As I was saying, this is an ideological, deliberate attack by the Government on our trade unions, our workers and their rights. Sadly, however, this attack is not without precedent. While they no longer send armed soldiers in to crush striking workers, this Tory Government are no less—[Interruption.] Conservative Members laugh, but they may want to check history and see that those are real events from the turn of the last century. It is not a laughing matter; it is a very serious matter, and if they choose to laugh at that, so be it. This Tory Government are no less opposed to unions.
On that point, let us remind ourselves of this Government’s record. Over the last decade, they introduced the draconian Trade Union Act 2016, eroding the ability of working people to take collective action, imposed illegal employment tribunal fees that priced people out of obtaining justice, and presided over a disgraceful rate of statutory sick pay, which is one of the worst in Europe. They have also broken a promise made during the passage of the Trade Union Act by backtracking on their commitment on electronic balloting, with the Government-commissioned Knight review, published in December 2017 and still awaiting a response from Ministers—more than four years later. It therefore comes as no surprise that Ministers have introduced these anti-union statutory instruments, as well as a further ministerial direction to once more attack working people.
Mark Garnier
The hon. Member is right about the trade unions, and I would echo that: I think they have done an extraordinarily good job. I worked with the Community union in my constituency at jobs fairs.
One of the characteristics of this change is that it makes the unions more independent. By giving the certification officer an independent form of financing, it means that the Government have less leverage over them, thereby ensuring more independence of the whole union movement, not less.
Imran Hussain
Certainly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s first point—that unions do a fantastic job—but unfortunately I do not agree with the rest. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not saying this, but one could interpret from what he said that somehow, if the Government were to pay an independent regulator, they could tell that regulator what to do. We know that is not the case—of course it is not.
Again, that is not the issue today. As I said to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, at the heart of this—I will come to this at greater length—are two points. The first is suddenly charging a levy—I know the Minister wants to say that there are other organisations where regulators are paid for in the same way, but unions are not profit-making organisations. It is almost as absurd as saying that charities should pay for the Charities Commission. The argument that the Minister made did not answer any of the questions posed from this side of the Committee, and I hope that he will do so when he sums up.
The first statutory instrument deals with the financial levy that the Government intend to impose on trade unions. That levy would impose unnecessary and disproportionate costs on trade unions, and would take money out of the funds used to fight for better pay terms and conditions. That is the crucial point. Any money that is taken from trade unions cannot be spent on defending their members. It is fine saying that it is 2.5% but, by the way, the overall figure is not capped.
That raises another interesting question: who makes up for the shortfall? If, for example, the certification officer says in two to three years that their costs will run into the millions—this instrument does not stop that; if the Minister disagrees, he can intervene—and we are saying that the cap on unions is 2.5%, who will make up for the shortfall?
Kevin Hollinrake
I guess the answer in the current situation is the taxpayer. Surely the only question here is: who should pay for the regulator? Should it be the trade unions and their members, or the taxpayer? That is the choice we are making. The Government have no money, so would the hon. Gentleman prefer the taxpayer to fund trade unions, many of whom do not benefit from trade union activity, or should it be the people who benefit from it?
Imran Hussain
The current known cost of the certification officer as it stands is about £700,000, which is paid by the taxpayer. There is, however, a principle: trade unions are there. I have just gone through some of the huge achievements of our trade union movement—which I am sure Conservative Members agree with me about—not just in this country but internationally, for workers in some of the poorest and most squalid conditions around the world. Our internationalist trade unions have gone and done that. Now, on the other hand, we are saying that the draft regulations are not for the good of workers. Trade unions help our workforce with their rights and conditions. Therefore, the principle is that of course this should be paid for by the taxpayer.
Jessica Morden
I declare an interest as a long-standing member of a trade union. My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Is it worth stopping and recognising at this point that those trade unions have been flat out in supporting our nurses, shopworkers and transport workers, who have been on the frontline in the pandemic, during this difficult time?
Imran Hussain
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly about the great work of our unions at this most difficult time. Over the past two years, we have seen the real values of our trade unions.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of Unison and Unite the union. Does my hon. Friend agree that those on the Government Benches are treating trade union members as if they are not taxpayers in our society? They are taxpayers—
Paula Barker
Nothing has been said about the money that the trade unions save the economy every year.
Imran Hussain
Again, a point well made that needs no further explanation by me. The value of our trade unions is a good point—again, Government Members are nodding. They accept the value of the trade unions. I do not think that there is a debate about that.
To go back to my point, in imposing the levy, the Government have deliberately misunderstood the role of trade unions, treating them not as a voice of working people but as profit-making companies. Let me be clear: this Government know full well that trade unions do not exist to make profits for themselves; they exist for the betterment of their members and the workforce as a whole in this country. I have already made this point, but given that we would not think to force charities to pay such a high levy to the Charity Commission, it is frankly outrageous to ask the trade unions to do so.
The Government have also failed to set out a real case for why they need to impose the levy. As democratically accountable organisations in their own right, trade unions have high compliance rates with their legal duties. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East pointed out, the certification officer dealt with just 34 complaints against trade unions, not one of which ended up with an enforcement order being pursued.
The reality is that if this draft statutory instrument passes, trade unions will have to meet the costs—my hon. Friend made this point—of politically motivated, malicious, vexatious and unsubstantiated investigations into them. Those investigations will almost certainly be initiated by those who have long-standing opposition to our trade unions. That is why we must vote the instrument down today.
Craig Mackinlay
The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech about unions, and I do not think there would be any argument from the Government side about the value of trade unions. However, does he have a view about some of the very well-paid officers that many unions have, who earn in excess of six figures in some cases? Could he not apply some pressure through his good offices to try to suppress some of those excessive salaries and fees?
Imran Hussain
The hon. Gentleman is somebody who I have time for and who normally makes some very good points. However, pay structures within organisations are pay structures within organisations—again, that issue is not relevant here. I take the point; he wants to make a political point. Again, I do not see the relevance of that issue in this debate.
The second statutory instrument deals with the financial penalties that the certification officer can impose. As the Minister pointed out, these can range up to £20,000 for a level 1 breach and closely resemble fines imposed in a criminal setting. However, the burden of proof is much lower, which means that the certification officer, in a politically motivated complaint, can impose a huge fine with a much lower evidential threshold. As I have pointed out, trade unions have high levels of compliance, with just one complaint for every 200,000 union members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East pointed out earlier, the question is: what is the need for greater financial penalties when there has been no need for them in years gone by? This is a deliberate attempt by the Government to squeeze every last penny that they can from our trade unions, preventing them from putting funds forward, representing their members and fighting for working people. That is another reason why these statutory instruments must be voted down today.
The Minister also referred to the expansion of the certification officer’s investigatory powers—although that is not included in these SIs, Mr Davies, I do not think we can have this debate without discussing it. This expansion, giving the certification officer new and wide-ranging powers, will allow for the initiation of investigations against a trade union even if there are no complaints from within the union itself, allowing anti-union organisations to submit vexatious and politically motivated complaints against trade unions. Even if no such complaint is upheld, the damage to the trade union will already have been done, with valuable time, money and resources being spent on fighting vexatious complaints rather than unscrupulous employers.
Chris Stephens
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he is emphasising the point that was made repeatedly in the Trade Union Public Bill Committee, namely that this process could include far-right organisations attacking trade unions for their fine anti-racism campaigning work. Does he believe, as I do, that if the Government are consistent, the people who make these sorts of vexatious and malicious complaints should have a levy and a fine imposed on them if they make these sorts of complaints against trade unions?
Imran Hussain
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that Government Members also agree. We believe this measure is politically motivated, but even if they do not, surely they would accept that it widens the scope and allows for far-right organisations to make malicious or vexatious claims, which at the very least will have to be investigated, and somebody will have to pay for that.
That is the issue at the heart of this debate. This legislation is not well thought out, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West has said. We maintain, of course, that it is politically motivated. I ask hon. Members to think about that and I particularly ask those who are members of trade unions to accept that point at least. This ministerial direction, which has huge implications, has also had a concerning lack of scrutiny, as it will never receive a proper debate in Parliament or a vote involving all Members.
That takes me to the lack of scrutiny that these measures as a whole have had. Rather than holding a debate on the Floor of the House, the Government have chosen to tuck these SIs away and try to pass them in Committee, which begs the question: why the avoidance of scrutiny? Why the avoidance of debate? The reality remains that the Government know that this is anti-union, anti-workers and anti-rights legislation. They want it passed in Committee rather than exposed in the full House.
Having looked at the clock, I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. Again, I say in the most respectful manner to the Minister—I do not envy him his job; he often gets rolled out in some of the most difficult to defend places—that I hope he answers some of the questions that have been raised by Opposition Members. Thus far, he has not answered any of them; he has said that he will deal with them in his concluding remarks. I ask him to address the serious concerns that have been raised by Opposition Members; set out why he believes that these regulations, which so clearly impede the ability of trade unions to represent working people, should be introduced, especially at a time of great economic uncertainty when working people are facing one of the greatest assaults on their rights in the workplace; and announce when he will fulfil the promise to give trade unions the power to hold ballots electronically by delivering the pilots that were announced half a decade ago.
When trade unions are empowered, working people are empowered, wages rise, conditions improve and productivity soars, so if the Government have any intention of fulfilling the promises they have made to working people, they will pull these regulations and repeal the Trade Union Act 2016. The Labour party has a proud history of standing up on the side of working people and those across the country who fight to protect them and their rights, and we will never shirk those responsibilities. We will therefore be voting against these regulations today.
Chris Stephens
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies, and I wish everybody a happy Burns day—the day of our national bard. As you know, Mr Davies, 90% of the world claims Scottish heritage; the other 10% are not trying hard enough. In discussing this legislation, I was reminded of the national bard’s poem “Address To The Toothache”. What I have heard so far from the Government—their excuses for trying to force through this levy—reminds me very much of that poem.
I am proud to declare my membership of Unison’s Glasgow City branch, my role as chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union’s group in this place, and my role as a trade union activist for 25 years before I came to this place. I am a proud trade unionist, and I always will be. I am proud of the work that trade unions have done across these islands.
As someone who sat on the Trade Union Bill Committee, I think it is important to give some context for some of the difficulties that the Government have found themselves in over the past four or five years, and that they still find themselves in. They are attempting today to impose fees on trade unions—a tax on trade unions, as was mentioned earlier—for complaints that could be made against them. At the same time, the Government tried to stop trade unions paying employers to take their subscriptions off under the check-off regulations. The Government ended up having to abandon that part of the Bill. They also had to abandon the holding of lists of those who were picketing an industrial action, because of concerns over breaches of human rights. At the time, they voted down attempts to introduce e-balloting for industrial action and internal trade union elections while they were using e-ballots to decide their own parliamentary candidates and their candidates for London Mayor—you really couldn’t make it up.
In the four years that we have been waiting while the Government have held the consultation—as I mentioned earlier, there have been two general elections since the consultation started—they have been promising an employment Bill, but where is it? We now know: when the Government were asked at the last Queen’s Speech where the employment Bill was, they admitted publicly that it was not a priority. Dealing with zero-hours contracts, short-term shift change notices and all the other abuses that we see in the workplace is not a priority, but imposing a tax on trade unions somehow is.
I have real concerns. I deliberately asked who makes a complaint for the certification officer to look at. In my view, it should be a trade union member. Trade union members have the right to go to the certification officer and raise a concern that they have with trade unions. However, I am sure the Minister will confirm that under the current Trade Union Act, with the new powers that have been issued to the certification officer, any organisation or member of the public can make a complaint against trade unions.
As the right hon. Member for Warley and the shadow Minister mentioned, that can include far-right organisations. Far-right organisations can make complaints against trade unions for their spending on anti-racism work. The trade unions have been one of the drivers in the fight against racism in this country, and I am proud of that, but we can have far-right organisations making vexatious complaints about funding for organisations such as Show Racism the Red Card—I declare that I chair the showing racism the red card all-party parliamentary group—and Hope not Hate.
Of course, we might have other organisations, such as that friend of the Conservative party, the TaxPayers Alliance, making vexatious complaints. It is somewhat ironic that the biggest cost to the taxpayer has been vexatious freedom of information requests, on occasion, from the TaxPayers Alliance, which could make vexatious and malicious complaints against trade unions.
John Spellar
I think the hon. Gentleman has slightly misnamed that organisation. Given that it will not reveal the sources of its income and that there are credible reports that many of them live abroad, should it not be the “TaxAvoiders Alliance”?
Chris Stephens
I stand corrected. The right hon. Member is absolutely correct: it should indeed be the TaxAvoiders Alliance. I can assure him that if we continue to refer to that organisation in this debate, I will use the appropriate term.
There are real issues with who should be allowed to make a complaint. My view has always been that I do not have a problem with a trade union member going to the certification officer with their concerns, but I will have a real concern if members of the public are allowed to do so.
We keep being told the cost to the taxpayer, but it is not a lot of money—£500,000 or £700,000. I have in front of me the transcript of the debate on the certification officer in the Trade Union Bill Committee. It is a good eight pages of reading, and it is very enlightening as to the arguments against fees and against increasing the powers of the certification officer, and the Government’s excuses about that. However, I have real concerns that what is at the heart of this legislation is an attempt to curb the work of trade unions in this country by imposing a financial cost on them.
Chris Stephens
I will just finish this point and then I will give way.
The trade unions have worked to ensure that people are not on exploitative zero-hours contracts, and they have fought against short-term shift change notices. By the way, all those things are covered by my Workers (Rights and Definition) Bill, which the Government could pick up at any time.
Mark Garnier
I ask this question out of curiosity rather than to try to make a political point. We hear that the certification officer is costing around £750,000 a year, which could increase. What would that be as a proportion of the total revenue generated by the trade unions through membership fees? I am afraid that I just do not know the total collective income of the unions. It would be helpful if we knew what proportion that £750,000 is of total union revenue across the United Kingdom.
Chris Stephens
I do not know what the trade union revenue is in the whole of the United Kingdom, but I can tell the hon. Member that I was the treasurer of the Glasgow City branch of Unison and its revenue certainly was not anywhere near £700,000. If he wants to see the accounts of that organisation, I am sure I can provide him with a copy.
Imran Hussain
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. The issue here is not the revenue that trade unions generate; it is that any money taken away from the trade unions is money taken away from helping working people—helping to improve their terms and conditions and fighting for their rights.
Chris Stephens
I agree with the shadow Minister. He will recall, because he referred to it, the attempt to impose fees at employment tribunals, which the Government ended up losing. That was also costing trade unions money, because they were having to pay to defend their members at employment tribunals.
Returning to the legislation at hand, I have a real concern that it curbs the basic work of trade unions in fighting for dignity in the workplace. Over the last two years, during the pandemic, we have seen a real exploitation of workers. That shows why we need an employment Bill, which we have been promised for the last four years. That is why the priorities are all wrong.
In addition, the Government have international obligations here, and they are not following them by taking this route. Thompsons Solicitors is clear that the International Labour Organisation conventions and article 6 are being breached. Extending the certification officer’s investigatory powers and imposing a levy would effectively make the certification officer the complainant, the investigator, the prosecutor and the judge. That is in contravention of article 6 of the European convention on human rights and in breach of International Labour Organisation standards. That is a very real concern. Once again, the Government find themselves outliers when it comes to international labour standards.
The Minister will try to present the regulations as standard practice, but I believe that they are ideological, they are an attack on the trade union movement and they are in breach of international obligations. Once again, the Government find themselves with their priorities all wrong. Will the Minister indicate whether he will accept my Workers (Rights and Definition) Bill, which would go a long way towards ensuring fairness in the workplace, or can he tell us when the Government will finally introduce their employment Bill to deal with so many issues affecting workers in this country?
John Spellar
I want to differ slightly from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East, who said that he did not envy the Minister his job. Surely, this must be a blessed relief from being put up on the “Today” programme to defend the Prime Minister’s latest peccadillos.
I declare that I have been for 50 years a member of the Unite union and its predecessors—in that time, I have been a branch chair, a branch secretary, a delegate to the trades council and a national officer of the union—and I am proud to be a trade unionist today. In spite of the behaviour of some trade union leaders, union officials and shop stewards work with employers every day to improve wages, improve conditions and deal with the many personnel issues that do not have to get to industrial tribunals because they are resolved through normal procedure. They are part of the engine that keeps our economy running. They were especially so during the pandemic, when all sorts of changes to rotas, rosters and working arrangements had to take place, particularly for those in public-facing roles who were not able to work from home, who kept society running, often at risk to themselves.
Good employers recognise that role and the importance of their engagement with unions, because they often face unfair competition from unfair employers—those who cut corners, who underpay, who abuse their workforce, who employ people illegally, and so on. Many of those good employers are on employers’ associations, by the way, and we are still not entirely clear how the balance of costs will be allocated. Even a company such as Uber, which initially fought against proper recognition of employment, is working with the unions to regulate that industry, not only here but in the United States. I will return to the international aspect in a little while.
One of the questions we have to address is, “Why now?” Why, particularly, is this coming up now? It has been four years or so in the making. Is this part of Operation Red Meat to throw something to the rabid, foaming Back Benchers of the Tory party, whose leitmotif—one of their articles of faith—is their hatred of trade unions to the benefit of employers, because they know that workers organised will recognise that they need to advance through politics too?
Jo Gideon
I would like to challenge the statement “hatred of trade unions”. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North and several other hon. Friends have already spoken about their massive support for trade unions, and I declare that in a previous role I was a member of Unite and was supported fantastically through that union. Making statements like that does not help us to have this discussion in a professional manner.
The Chair
Before the right hon. Gentleman resumes his speech, can I make a plea? This is not a general debate on trade unions, interesting though that may be; it is a debate about specific proposals, which we must stick to. We have a time limit, so if we could stick to the proposals before us, that would be helpful.
John Spellar
Thank you, Mr Davies. I certainly do not intend to run beyond the time limit in my contribution, and nor would you let me. We are talking about specific proposals, which will bring in additional costs in order to undermine unions. In dealing with the background of that—
Mark Garnier
With apologies the right hon. Gentleman, may I provide an update on my intervention on the hon. Member for Glasgow South West? I have had a look at the numbers on Google. These may not be accurate, but the total revenue for unions is just under £1.3 billion a year. Spread among 6.4 million members—according to these figures—that works out as £195 per year. If, through the levy, we are going to pay the certification officer £1 million a year, which is more than we are expecting, that works out at 15p per member per year. I cannot think of anything that can be bought for 15p, anywhere—not even a KitKat—so the levy is tiny in proportion.
John Spellar
Of course, it is symbolic for the Tory party, but it is also part of a pattern. The union learning fund, which was mentioned previously; industrial tribunal fees; access to industrial tribunals—it is all part of a drip, drip, drip, wearing away at the ability of trade unions to represent their members.
I am slightly surprised that the Minister prays in aid a time of austerity. Did he not see what happened yesterday in the House of Lords, when his noble Friend Lord Agnew resigned from the Government, saying that they have paid out nearly a billion pounds to banks claiming the state guarantee, and that they estimate that about 20% of that was fraud? Lord Agnew went on to say:
“Total fraud loss across government is estimated at £29 billion”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2022; Vol. 818, c. 21.]
Rather than address that, they want to have another go at the trade unions.
In the same way, the Home Office was found in court to have broken the law by charging excessive amounts—grossly overcharging—to register children as British citizens, yet the Government still have not responded to that by introducing legislation. Again, we ask why not.
Chris Stephens
The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent contribution. Does he see the irony in these regulations coming from a Government who preach deregulation in almost all sectors of the economy except for trade unions, which are subjected to massive regulation? It goes from laissez-faire to Stalinism with nothing whatsoever in between, does it not?
John Spellar
I have no objection to the regulation of trade union activities. I think it perfectly proper—many other countries do it—but what we are seeing is steadily undermining trade unions’ ability to operate at work, as we have seen over many years, and putting increasing burdens on them.
Let us take the example of vexatious complainants, which are covered by the regulations. There are no protections in the event that somebody comes along and says, “I read in The Daily Telegraph or the Daily Mail that this has happened, and I am lodging a complaint to the certification officer.” Quite apart from the cost of the certification officer, that puts a great burden on the unions, which will have to defend themselves against complaints not from members or even employers, who have other routes to make complaints about union behaviour, but from somebody sat in his armchair, picking up on a story in his newspaper. Why is that included in the regulations?
Kevin Hollinrake
I want to clear up one point. Personally—I probably speak for one or two others on this side of the Committee—I am not against trade unions, but I am for a fair balance between workers’ rights and the rights of business. I am also after a fair balance in who pays for that. In the UK, there are 6 million members of trade unions, but 10 million retired people and 6 million self-employed people. Why should those taxpayers pay for the people who benefit from trade union activities?
John Spellar
I think that applies to all sorts of activities. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is assuming that those 10 million retired people were not trade unionists when they were at work—a great majority were. They may actually believe in trade unions and think that there were very good in their time, and may regret that the role of trade unions has been diminished by persistent attack from Conservative Governments and employers.
Paula Barker
Does my right hon. Gentleman agree that some retired people are still members of trade unions, participate fully in their structures, and benefit from them?
John Spellar
My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
In addition, even those who are not union members benefit from union activity. If they work in an establishment, they will benefit from a pay rise. If they move from employer to employer in an industry that is mobile in and of its nature, such as the construction industry, union agreements underpin their terms and conditions. Interestingly, in Western Australia, when the Conservative Government was trying to bring in very rigid regulation of unions, many well-paid non-union members in the mines recognised that their terms and conditions and balance of power with the employer were underpinned by trade union activity and organisation. Basically, when unions are working well, everybody benefits—not just workers, but the economy and good employers.
What we have seen with the international attack led by the Republican right in the United States, as indeed with their so-called voting regulations—again, to address non-existent problems—is the labour share of gross domestic product around the world steadily declining in the face of those attacks, and that directly reflects the decline in union influence in the workforce.
Of course, that plays into the economy as well, because what we see then is a demand deficit in the economy. As money has been put into the economy, particularly during the era of covid, the amount of money that has been skewed towards the ultra-rich and super-rich has been going up while living standards have been kept down. Again, we saw that with Thatcher-Reagan and—
The Chair
Order. I have given the right hon. Gentleman considerable latitude, but I do not want a history lesson on the 1980s. I want us to come back to what we are actually debating today. I trust he will do that.
John Spellar
You are right to bring me up to date, Mr Davies, because today, from the Government’s point of view, these sorts of regulations, which will be seen as anti-union not only in this country but elsewhere, will not help us in our relations with the United States, where there is an Administration that is strongly pro-union. We are trying to get a trade deal, and trade and workers’ rights are not unconnected. If we look, for example, at the import of personal protective equipment into the United States, a firm in Malaysia has been found guilty of unfair labour practice—forced labour. The United States then says, “We are barring that company from selling into the USA.”
Craig Mackinlay
The right hon. Gentleman is offering a great exposé of the history of the trade unions locally and internationally. We are talking here about a sum across the entire trade union movement of approximately £1 million at best, with an income, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest, of about £1 billion. I have just looked up some donations to the Labour party in 2019: £3.5 million for the election from Unite and £425,000 from the CWU. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that by saving some of the administration costs to the union movement, it can recirculate more to the Labour party? Is that the core of his arguments?
John Spellar
That is a pretty poor argument because that would be in breach of very long-standing trade union legislation whereby members make a donation through the political levy to the political fund, which is protected. If the hon. Gentleman has one shred of evidence of administrative general fund money being channelled through into the political fund, even under the current law he can go straight down, because someone is not required to be a member in order to make that sort of payment. He might be a bit more sensitive about political donations and spending, but we will leave that on one side.
Craig Mackinlay
On a point of order, Mr Davies. I like political debate. I was acquitted in a court of law, and the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise that in this debate. I find that disgusting, Mr Davies.
The Chair
That is not really a point of order. As I have pleaded before, we must stick to the issue before us today. If the right hon. Member for Warley will not stick to the issue before us today, I will move on to someone else who might. I urge him to stick to what we are debating today. He will have no further latitude because I have already given him plenty.
John Spellar
Thank you, Mr Davies. I am arguing that these measures are not only wrong but, even from the Government’s own point of view, ill-advised, particularly because, as I have indicated, the United States has a new Administration with a very different perspective on labour-union rights. They have made that explicitly clear in policy, but also in appointments and in the decisions of the National Labor Relations Board.
I very much support a trade deal with the United States, as I supported the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, unlike some in my own party. However, if our Trade Secretary is seen as pleading for a trade deal, and we are seen as moving further and further into anti-union territory, into the old Republican right, that will count against us, because Joe Biden will be President for the next three years.
The Minister ought to have discussions with the Department for International Trade to ascertain whether petty, sneaky actions that nibble away at trade unions will actually benefit not just the Conservatives, but this country in securing a very desirable trade deal. It is clear from President Biden’s statements that he very much believes that when unions prosper, the middle class prospers and America prospers. That is true in the States; it is true here. The Government better get the message that there is a new sheriff in town, and these sorts of actions are not going to help them—or Britain either.
Paula Barker
Listening to the debate, it is literally like going back to the future. Such is the obsession of this Conservative Government, like every one before them, with taking a sledgehammer to trade union power—what little there is left in 2022—that anyone would think that it is 1979.
Let us be clear: this measure represents a further attack on our civil liberties, for which the governing party has little regard anyhow. In this instance, the very organisations that defend workers’ rights and advance the call for better conditions are now in line for a further degradation of their powers. Trade unions have always sought to resolve conflict as a first resort. They balance the scales of the unequal distribution of power in our labour market, and are a force for overwhelming good in eradicating the inequalities that are deeply embedded in our society.
This statutory instrument represents a tax on trade union activity. It will give rise to the perverse situation that a trade union will have to pay its own regulator to regulate its activities.
Mark Garnier
I would like to correct an earlier intervention. The tax actually works out at 1.5p per member per year. I apologise for getting my maths wrong earlier, Mr Davies. I was an investment banker for 17 years.
Paula Barker
I did not make any comment about how much the tax is; I simply said that it was a tax.
Jessica Morden
The proposals treat trade unions like profit-making companies. Political parties do not pay for the Electoral Commission, and charities do not pay for the Charity Commission, so why should trade unions pay for their regulator?
Paula Barker
My hon. Friend makes a really good point. No other organisation with social activities pays a levy of this sort, and it is wholly inappropriate for trade unions to do so.
This tax is unjustifiable, and is set to be grossly exaggerated by the certification officer’s own distorted valuations. The trade union levy will become the double levy, going far and beyond covering the base operational costs—the TUC estimates £415,000 in the year 2022-23. Some £1.15 million to cover £700,000 worth of costs simply does not add up. I do not know how the Government can justify that.
The levy is a double tax, with little safeguard, scrutiny or accountability. Trade unions will have to pay for potentially vexatious investigations, initiated by friends like the “TaxAvoiders Alliance”, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley called it, or the Institute of Economic Affairs. I know at first hand that our trade unions have a long-established reputation of complying with their legal regulations. I have been a member of the trade union movement for over 30 years. I was also an activist for over a decade before taking my place in this House—[Interruption.] Mr Davies, I think it would benefit Conservative Members to actually listen to what is being said.
The Chair
Order. I think the hon. Lady is absolutely right, to be perfectly honest. There are some very loud conversations taking place opposite the hon. Lady. It is distracting to me and completely disrespectful to her. Please can we listen to what she has to say? It is the least she can expect.
Paula Barker
Thank you, Mr Davies. We have to ask what could possibly be the motivation for such continued, sustained attacks from the Tory Government. The certification officer’s annual report for 2020-21 shows that she dealt with 34 complaints last year. That is one for every 200,000 union members, and not a single enforcement was imposed. It does not take a genius to work out that political ideology rather than good governance is the driving force behind the trade union levy.
Not satisfied with stringent balloting laws, interference with trade union democracy and outlawing acts of solidarity, the Government are now trying to bring in a new tax with criminal-like fines to boot. It is worth reiterating what has been stated several times today by hon. Members: other issues stemming from the Trade Union Act 2016—most significantly electronic balloting—remain outstanding. Why is that? Up and down the country, working people are feeling the pinch. Inflation is at 5.4%. There are rising energy prices. This is a real cost of living crisis. What are the Government doing? They are here, saying that valuable parliamentary time is better spent in this Committee Room today than actually dealing with the cost-of-living crisis that is affecting so many working people in this country.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West said, we are waiting on the Government to bring an employment Bill. I want to place on record that I had a private Member’s Bill, and the Minister was extremely generous with his time. We had very cordial and constructive conversations. We talked about the employment Bill coming to the Floor of the House. We talked about the fact that low-paid care workers, predominantly women, were not being paid what they are legally entitled to.
It is not about what these care workers could be paid or what the trade unions could negotiate, it is written in law that they should be paid travel time between visits. Are the Government addressing those sorts of issues? No, they are not. They are looking to bring back anti-trade union laws to this House. Quite frankly, I think that is morally reprehensible. My final question to the Government is: where does this all stop? Will the Government not stop until they finally outlaw the trade unions?
Apsana Begum
I would like to declare that I am a proud member of Unite the union and Unison. The regulations before us are punitive and cynical. They are an assault on the ability of working people to organise. That is what they are about. They are an attack on human rights. We must be clear that trade union rights are fundamental human rights. All of this is being done through secondary legislation. The Government’s increasing use of such legislation raises important questions about the quality of the law itself— its clarity, accessibility and democratic legitimacy.
Beyond this small Committee Room off one of the richly decorated corridors of Parliament, outside in the real world we know that there is a real sense of dissatisfaction—even despair—in workplaces across Britain. Despite working longer hours than those in all other EU countries, except Greece and Austria, millions cannot afford to make ends meet. With soaring in-work poverty, many workers are already facing the brutality of the cost of living squeeze.
On top of that, there is an extra poignancy to the disturbing nature of today’s regulations. I believe that it is particularly important to have in the forefront of our minds the enormous contributions that workers have made during the pandemic, despite the failures at all levels that have contributed to thousands of staff dying across all sections of various workforces. Now, the Government are trying to attack what is all too often their only means of challenging injustices. When thousands of workers were being pressured to return to their jobs even when they were still at risk of spreading covid-19, were being forced to work in unsafe conditions or were being fired and rehired on worse conditions, it was trade unions and trade unionists all over the country that stepped up. However, the Government’s refusal properly to engage with trade unions over and over again during the covid-19 crisis has resulted in an astonishing litany of failures, including but definitely not limited to inconsistent and unclear regulations, the failure to ensure that all workers have access to PPE, the failure to protect workers from unsafe working conditions and the failure properly to support workers to prevent them from being pressured into difficult situations or being forced to decide between economic welfare and their health, given the inadequacy of sick pay.
I could go on, but I will conclude by saying that trade unionism is one of the most fundamental responses to the injustices that workers invariably face. It is the best way to see one’s pay increase, to see a safer environment at work, to feel freer to express one’s opinion and to have one’s rights realised. I will always stand in solidarity with the trade union movement and oppose this Government’s cynical attacks on working people through these instruments.
Paul Scully
I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration of both sets of regulations and for Members’ valuable contributions to the debate. As I said in opening the debate, unions play a really important role in industrial relations and have a significant impact on our economy. That is why it is imperative that the public have confidence that they are being regulated effectively and fairly, and these reforms ensure just that.
It is a shame that there was a job lot of questions, because I now have eight minutes to answer all of those. Actually, we have just been re-rehearsing the arguments that were made on the overall premise, which was agreed in relation to the Trade Union Act itself. I will answer some of the questions. Clearly, the employment Bill, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West knows, is primary legislation. It will be announced, when it comes forward in parliamentary time, in the Queen’s Speech. This measure—what we are addressing today—is completing previous legislation and therefore does not have to go through the same process. The certification officer has received 62 complaints in the last few years. Not all of those had to be investigated, because they could be dismissed. Eight were upheld, and there was one enforcement notice. That is what comes through to—
Paul Scully
I will not give way, because unfortunately I now have so little time to respond that I need to plough on.
In terms of vexatious complaints by third parties, third parties will not have a right to make a formal complaint or have them investigated, but clearly the certification officer may consider their representations in deciding whether to launch an investigation. The certification officer, unlike with a complaint from a union member, will not be required to take action in response to a third party’s concern. She will have the decision to do so. And the certification officer can conclude that she will take no action. That is why I do not believe that the arguments about the far right are relevant in this case.
In terms of the net budget that we have heard about, the £700,000, and where that money is coming from, that is the net budget, as I said. That is the money given by ACAS after accommodation, IT and a lot of the other fixed costs. It does equate currently to about £1 million; £1.15 million—that is the estimate according to our figures—is given to the certification officer, based on those current accounts. The certification officer can only charge for expenses incurred over a three-year period. Clearly, there are tests that are required, as it is a public authority, to ensure that she has sight of them at a reasonable level.
The right hon. Member for Warley talked about how the levy is calculated and who will be paying. The total levy, which is clearly needed to pay the expenses for the financial year, will be worked out by the certification officer. Approximately 50% of her time and functions relate to all organisations. That is covered in the basic levy. Small organisations will be exempt when the basic levy exceeds 2.5% of their annual income. The remaining 50% of the certification officer’s time is taken up by regulations that apply to non-federated trade unions. That will be divided out in the additional levy. The total shortfall in the amount collected by the basic and additional levies due to organisations that are exempt from paying will be divided equally among all higher-income organisations. That will support the enhanced levy. There are 21 employer associations and 40 non-federated trade unions that will be totally exempt from the levy, and 59 non-federated unions will be at that top level of the basic, categorised additional and enhanced levy.
We have talked about whether this is compliant with the European convention on human rights. Trade unions, as I have said, play an important role in our workplace and society. It is perfectly reasonable for the Government to legislate to ensure that they act democratically, transparently and within the rule of law. We are satisfied that regulation by the state, as set out in the Trade Union Act 2016, is entirely consistent with the ILO conventions and the European convention on human rights. This is not an attack on trade unions. This is not politicisation. No aspect of the decisions of the certification officer is subject to any pressure from a Minister of the Crown, and that will not change at all. This measure is simply modernising it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest asked what happens to the fines. They go into the Treasury’s consolidated fund. They do not subsidise the certification officer, and neither will she be able to profit from them. That will keep things on a level playing field and she will fine people based only on what is in front of her. This provides no temptation, albeit as a public authority she should clearly not be going down that road anyway.
It has been said that a higher evidential standard should be applied to the higher fines. Clearly, the burden of proof standards are lower than those applied in criminal investigations, but this is a civil action, so they equate and are comparable to other civil payments.
Accusations have been made comparing the £1.15 million to the fraud that was talked about in the other place yesterday. No fraudulent claims for bounce back loans have been written off. In fact, nearly £2.2 billion-worth of potentially fraudulent claims for bounce back loans were stopped and recovered just last year.
We have also talked about valuing workers organising. Clearly, we on the Government side value workers organising. Indeed, we valued that in December 2019, especially when workers in Stoke organised to vote in droves for two fine Conservative Members.
Jessica Morden
Why is it that the Minister is introducing these statutory instruments today but has not responded to the e-balloting review?
Paul Scully
We are currently considering that review. In 2019, we were required by section 4 of the Trade Union Act 2016 to consult relevant organisations, including professionals from expert associations, to seek their advice and recommendations. We have done that and are now finalising our consideration of Sir Ken’s recommendations. We will issue our response later this year.
The Trade Union Act contains a significant safeguard that requires the certification officer to aim to ensure that the total amount levied over a three-year period does not exceed expenses. We continue to believe that that will ensure that the levy remains predictable. The reforms will bring the certification officer in line with the powers and funding arrangements of comparable regulators. It is not a tax; it is, as we have heard, a proportionate measure to bring it in line with other regulators and to ensure that the regulated organisations have a proportionate levy. Indeed, many of them, as I have outlined, will be exempted entirely. The certification officer has always gone about their duties in an independent and impartial way, and that will continue.
The Government believe that there is a strong public interest in appropriately regulated trade unions. These reforms are about modernising the certification officer, to ensure that she can continue to deliver her duties. I commend both sets of regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Non-domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) (No.2) Order 2021
(2 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, may I remind Members that we are expected to wear face coverings unless we are speaking and to maintain distancing as far as possible? That is in line with the current guidance from the House of Commons. I remind everybody to send their speaking notes to Hansard by email, which would be incredibly helpful.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) (No. 2) Order 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller.
Businesses are at the heart of this country’s economy, and as the United Kingdom starts its recovery from coronavirus that is more the case than it has been before. That is why at the Budget the Chancellor announced a package of measures to benefit businesses large and small. It included key reforms to business rates to ease their burden and create stronger high streets. To help business in the short term, the Chancellor announced that we would cancel this year’s planned increase in the business rates multiplier. The statutory instrument before the Committee contains the legislation that will turn that change into reality. It freezes the business rates multiplier at its current rate for the coming year, instead of increasing it in line with the consumer prices index, as is usual.
I will remind the Committee of how the business rates multiplier works and some of the key reforms we have already made. The ‘multiplier’ is effectively a tax rate used to calculate business rates. There are two kinds of multipliers. The standard multiplier applies to businesses with a rateable value of more than £51,000. The small business multiplier applies to businesses with a rateable value of up to £51,000. Historically, those multipliers would rise in line with the preceding year’s retail prices index inflation figure. At the 2016 Budget, the Government announced they would switch to uprating the multiplier in line with the consumer prices index measure of inflation, instead of RPI.
Members will recall that the following year, the Government brought forward the implementation date from April 2020 to April 2018. The switch from RPI to CPI is worth around £15.3 billion to businesses over the next five years, and that benefit will grow with time. But we are not stopping here. As I outlined earlier, at the autumn Budget we announced a package of measures worth £7 billion over the next five years to support businesses large and small. It included a new temporary 50% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses next financial year, worth almost £1.7 billion. We are also providing £750 million-worth of investment incentives to businesses—for instance our new green investment relief. From next year, our business rates improvement relief will allow businesses to make property improvements and pay no extra business rates for 12 months.
In addition we have pledged to make the business rates system fairer and timelier with more frequent revaluations every three years. The new revaluation cycle will be delivered from 2023. However, while that support is wide-ranging, the Government also recognise that businesses need help even sooner. That is why we are introducing this SI, which will allow us to freeze the inflationary increase in business rates for next financial year to this year’s levels.
The freeze means that the small business multiplier next financial year will be 49.9p, rather than 51.4p, and the standard multiplier in 2022-23 will be 51.2p rather than 52.7p. This measure provides relief to millions of small businesses, by saving firms an estimated £4.6 billion over the next five years. The measures contained in this order apply to England, but the Government will provide the devolved Administrations with equitable funding. In addition, we will fully compensate local authorities for the income that they will lose because of this measure.
Our small businesses are the beating heart of our economy. It is only right that we do all we can to support them, particularly at a time like this. The SI is a significant element of the action the Government are taking to reduce the burden of business rates. The order reflects the Government’s commitment to businesses large and small. It will provide businesses with much needed certainty and security so they can continue to power the economy. And it will help them to flourish following these recent difficult times. For all those reasons I commend the order to the Committee.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Mrs Miller.
As we heard from the Minister, we know that national non-domestic rates are calculated as the product of a hereditament's rateable value, as determined by the independent Valuation Office Agency, and the relevant multiplier. The small business non-domestic rating multiplier applies in relation to hereditaments with rateable values of less than £51,000. The national non-domestic rating multiplier applies in relation to hereditaments of £51,000 or more. We understand that the delegated legislation effectively maintains the non-domestic rating multiplier rates in the financial year 2022-23 at the same level as they were in 2021-22 in relation to the payment of business rates.
The Opposition will not oppose the SI, but I have a few small points to raise. The impact assessment in the explanatory memorandum notes that no impact assessment has been made of the order because
“it amends a local tax regime”,
and because businesses, charities, voluntary bodies and public and private sector entities will not see an increase to their rates. However, we know that inflation is at its highest level in decades, and businesses continue to face challenges associated with the pandemic. What assessment has the Minister made of the recovery of UK businesses? Can she outline what further support her Government will offer businesses that are still struggling?
Furthermore, the explanatory memorandum notes
“The operation of this instrument will be monitored and reviewed as part of the operation of the national non-domestic rates system as a whole.”
I would be grateful if the Minister outlined the detail of that review process.
Of course, we in the Opposition have set out our broader position in relation to business rates. We would scrap the current system and replace it with a fairer system in the future. On a wider point, we are disappointed that the Government have abandoned their promise to review business rates fundamentally. However, we will not oppose the SI and we welcome any benefit that it is able to bring to businesses at this difficult time.
Lucy Frazer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that the Opposition will not oppose this sensible measure, which will support and protect businesses. As he rightly said, there was no need for an impact assessment for the reasons that he outlined. If we were to conduct one, of course it would show that the proposal is hugely beneficial to businesses, which will not be paying a significant amount of business rates that they would otherwise pay. They can therefore use that money in their own businesses, benefiting the economy.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to outline the support that we are giving to businesses. He will know that in the past 18 months, we have given significant support to businesses through the provision of loans and grants, and he will have seen the extensive measures contained in the Finance Bill that we had the pleasure to debate together. They include not only the multiplier that we are debating today, but the business rate relief, the investment allowance and a number of other measures.
On business rates, we did a review of those rates and as a result made changes that will benefit businesses to the tune of around £7 billion. But that is not all we have done. The hon. Gentleman will know that we announced our intention to review the online sales tax. That will be conducted shortly.
James Murray
To clarify, I asked about the detail of the review process of the SI. The explanatory memorandum says
“The operation of this instrument will be monitored and reviewed as part of the operation of the national non-domestic rates system as a whole.”
I am sure the Minister has a copy of the explanatory memorandum. Can she outline the detail of that review process?
Lucy Frazer
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we keep all our taxes under review. The SI will be reviewed in due course, and I would be happy to update him when any such reviews are undertaken.
I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart
Turning to amendment 2, the Bill seeks to exempt 16 to 18-year-olds from the provision of guidance on options available for 16 to 18 education or training, including apprenticeships. That guidance is thought to be unnecessary, as 16 to 18-year-olds who are not in compulsory schooling will have already chosen their post-16 options. If we adopted this amendment, schools would be obliged to provide 16 to 18-year-olds with guidance on post-16 education or training options, which might simply waste their time and schools’ resources. In fact, that exemption—it must be noted—is already in force through the Careers Guidance in Schools Regulations 2013, so the Bill simply seeks to move what we have previously had in guidance into primary legislation: it is more of a tidying-up exercise.
[Official Report, 14 January 2022, Vol. 706, c. 777.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart).
An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope).
The correct response should have been:
Alex Burghart
Turning to amendment 2, the Bill seeks to exempt 16 to 18-year-olds from the provision of guidance on options available for 16 to 18 education or training, including apprenticeships. That guidance is thought to be unnecessary, as 16 to 18-year-olds who are not in compulsory schooling will have already chosen their post-16 options. If we adopted this amendment, schools would be obliged to provide 16 to 18-year-olds with guidance on post-16 education or training options, which might simply waste their time and schools’ resources. In fact, that exemption—it must be noted—is already in force through the Careers Guidance in Schools Regulations 2013, so the Bill simply seeks to move what we have previously had into primary legislation: it is more of a tidying-up exercise.
Treasury
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Frazer
Legal interpretation tax losses arise when businesses take a different view from HMRC of how the law should be applied, resulting in a different tax outcome. This issue has proven stubborn and difficult to tackle. Disputes often arise late in the day and are not identified in time for formal compliance enquiries to be undertaken, resulting in irrecoverable losses to the Exchequer. The new notification requirement will tackle the legal interpretation tax gap in a well-targeted and proportionate way, raising £150 million over the next five years, while driving positive behavioural change.
[Official Report, Finance (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 11 January 2022, Vol. 706, c. 106.]
Letter of correction from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury:
An error has been identified in my statement.
The correct information should have been:
Lucy Frazer
Legal interpretation tax losses arise when businesses take a different view from HMRC of how the law should be applied, resulting in a different tax outcome. This issue has proven stubborn and difficult to tackle. Disputes often arise late in the day and are not identified in time for formal compliance enquiries to be undertaken, resulting in irrecoverable losses to the Exchequer. The new notification requirement will tackle the legal interpretation tax gap in a well-targeted and proportionate way, raising £130 million over the next five years, while driving positive behavioural change.
Rebated Fuel Rules: Construction Industry
The following is an extract from the Westminster Hall debate on Rebated Fuel Rules: Construction Industry on 19 January 2022.
Helen Whately
Despite diesel being one of the most polluting fuels that vehicles and machinery can use, red diesel benefits from a significant duty discount—a duty rate of around 11p compared with almost 68p per litre on standard diesel. That really is significant. As a consequence, businesses using red diesel pay far less for the harmful emissions they produce than individual car owners. The tax changes that we are introducing in April mean most current users of red diesel in the UK will instead be required to use diesel taxed at the standard fuel duty rate like motorists, which more fairly reflects the harmful impact of the emissions that are produced.
[Official Report, 19 January 2022, Vol. 707, c. 165WH.]
Letter of correction from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the debate on Rebated Fuel Rules: Construction Industry.
The correct statement should have been:
Helen Whately
Despite diesel being one of the most polluting fuels that vehicles and machinery can use, red diesel benefits from a significant duty discount—a duty rate of around 11p compared with almost 60p per litre on standard diesel. That really is significant. As a consequence, businesses using red diesel pay far less for the harmful emissions they produce than individual car owners. The tax changes that we are introducing in April mean most current users of red diesel in the UK will instead be required to use diesel taxed at the standard fuel duty rate like motorists, which more fairly reflects the harmful impact of the emissions that are produced.
Women and Equalities
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart
Between 2010 and 2020, under this Conservative Government, the number of women accepted on to full-time STEM undergraduate courses in the UK has increased by 49%.
[Official Report, 12 January 2022, Vol. 706, c. 553.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart).
An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb).
The correct response should have been:
Alex Burghart
Between 2010 and 2021, under this Conservative Government, the number of women accepted on to full-time STEM undergraduate courses in the UK has increased by 49%.
Charities Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 25th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Charities Act 2022 View all Charities Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 January 2022 - (25 Jan 2022)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary points. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Mr Speaker has asked that Members wear face coverings in Committee except when they are speaking, unless they are exempt. The Hansard Reporters would be grateful if Members could email any electronic copies of speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Resolved,
That the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 25 January) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 25 January, and
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 27 January.—(Nigel Huddleston.)
Ordered,
That the Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Clauses 1 to 24, Schedule 1, Clauses 25 to 40, Schedule 2, Clause 41, New Clauses, New Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill.—(Nigel Huddleston.)
The Chair
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debate. We have grouped some clause stand part debates together to avoid repetition. Only one amendment has been tabled; the decision on that will be taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects.
Clause 1
Alteration of Charitable Company’s Purposes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, I believe for the first time. I want first to briefly acknowledge the task before us. These Committee sittings will enable line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, which has been drafted to improve charity law and to pass time and cost savings on to the charity sector. I am pleased that we have reached this stage in the Bill’s passage, and I am grateful for the support the Bill has received and the scrutiny it has been subjected to thus far.
Clause 1 changes the definition of a “regulated alteration”, meaning that only alterations to the substance of a charity’s purposes will require Charity Commission approval. There will no longer be a requirement to obtain Charity Commission consent to simply change the wording of a charity’s purposes where the overall meaning remains unchanged. This change creates consistency in the processes for amending a charity’s governing document across the different legal forms that charities can take.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the Minister for his introduction.
The Opposition agree with the measures in clause 1. They will reduce bureaucracy and allow charities to focus on the work that they do, which is the essence of the Bill. Charities do great work for society and our communities. We owe it to them to provide a legal framework that is clear and manageable—especially for the large number of small charities with limited staff and resources—but with sufficient safeguards for charities and for the system. We also owe charities an efficient framework that allows them to concentrate not on bureaucratic technicalities but on doing their work, and the clause is an example of the proposed changes in the Bill that will allow them to do that.
I am going to make the same point that I made the last time the Minister and I were in Committee together, on the Dormant Assets Bill. There is a temptation for Opposition spokespeople to get up every time a clause is moved, essentially repeat the Minister’s remarks in brief and then say, “We agree,” but I will avoid that temptation. We agree with the Bill. It is well put together, we appreciate the safeguards in it, and we agree with the measures in it. The Bill is not controversial, so I will not respond to every clause; I will do so just in the few areas where we have particular points to make. Generally speaking, the Opposition are content with all the clauses.
The Bill is highly technical. It is the result of extensive consultation and discussion. I join the Minister in thanking the House of Lords for its scrutiny of the Bill and for looking thoroughly into the proposals. It is clear to me, having read the Hansard reports of all the Bill’s stages, that the Lords looked carefully at the detail in the Bill and explored some of the Law Commission recommendations that were not included in it. I referred to that on Second Reading, particularly with respect to clause 40—I know that the Minister has written to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central about that—and clause 43. Since that debate was had in the Lords, I do not intend to repeat it today.
I thank the Law Commission for its thorough work in bringing forward the proposals in the Bill. It is supported throughout the sector. I thank the charities sector for its engagement and advice. The Opposition have not tabled any amendments. It is customary for very few substantive amendments to be proposed to Law Commission Bills, so we have not tabled any. We did not feel strongly enough about any proposals that were included or missed out to necessitate an amendment.
Having made those introductory remarks, let me say that I agree with clause 1 and I hope that we will speed through the rest of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone that he has adopted throughout. He is absolutely right; my modus operandi in politics is, “If things aren’t party political, don’t make them so,” and that is very much the case with charities. I thank both Opposition Members and Government Members for all their work. There is a great deal of expertise here, and the Bill gets to us in a good place because of the level of scrutiny that has taken place. I am more than willing to take questions now or as the Bill progresses. I also commit to moving at speed, but respectfully, through the Bill. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I have broken his rule by standing up to say, “I agree”—I will try not to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Amendments to constitution of CIOs
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Clause 2 aligns the process for charitable incorporated organisations—CIOs—to amend their governing documents with the process in place for charitable companies. Specifically, CIOs will have greater control over the date that an amendment comes into force, offering them the ability to make changes at a time to suit their organisational objectives. The clause also sets out the considerations that the Charity Commission must make when deciding whether to consent to any alteration to a CIO’s purposes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Powers of unincorporated charities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Clause 3 introduces a new power in section 280A of the Charities Act 2011, which replaces sections 267 to 280 of the 2011 Act, creating a simpler and more consistent process for unincorporated charities to amend any provision in their governing documents. Charity Commission consent is still required for certain amendments. Important safeguards, such as Charity Commission consent for regulated alterations—changes to a charity’s purposes, for example—remain in place to ensure that any amendments are in the best interests of the charity and its beneficiaries. Trustees can appeal to the charity tribunal against a Charity Commission decision to withhold consent for such an amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Power to amend Royal charter
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Clause 4 allows charities established or regulated by royal charter to amend their governing documents more easily, by providing them with a new power to amend any provision in their charter where there is no express power to do so in the charter. Any amendments will be subject to approval by Her Majesty by Order in Council.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Orders under section 73 of the Charities Act 2011: parliamentary procedure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Clause 5 repeals part of section 73 of the Charities Act 2011, so that when a charity amends its governing document using a section 73 scheme, which is given effect by secondary legislation, that secondary legislation will be subject to the negative parliamentary procedure by default. That is instead of distinguishing between section 73 schemes under private Acts, which follow the negative procedure, and schemes under public general Acts, which currently follow the affirmative procedure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Cy-près powers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
On failed fundraising appeals and so-called cy-près schemes, clauses 6 and 7 expand the circumstances in which funds from a failed fundraising appeal can be applied to other purposes. The current law requires charities to contact donors to offer to return their donation if a fundraising appeal does not achieve its target. The Bill allows charities to use funds for a different but similar purpose if the funds cannot be used for the original purpose. Any use of funds over £1,000 would need approval from the Charity Commission. This change protects donors’ wishes while reducing administrative burdens on charities.
Clause 8 confirms that any power to make schemes in respect of a charitable trust extends to charitable companies, charitable incorporated organisations or any other charity, thereby creating more consistency among different legal forms of charity. This excludes charities subject to special scheme-making procedures, such as those governed by royal charter or statute.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Definition of “permanent endowment”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Clauses 9 to 13 set out a clearer definition of “permanent endowment”, removing ambiguity and providing a definition that is more in line with the sector’s understanding of the term. The Bill confirms that the existing power to release permanent endowment under the Charities Act 2011 is available to all charities, making it available without Charity Commission consent in respect of funds up to a value of £25,000—that is up from the existing £10,000 limit—and with Charity Commission consent for funds above that value.
The Bill provides a new power for trustees to borrow from their permanent endowment, creating the ability to use permanent endowments for loss-making social investments. These changes provide trustees with more options to make the best use of their assets. There are, of course, appropriate safeguards in place, such as thresholds for the amount of permanent endowment that can be borrowed, and a maximum time period within which the funds must be paid back.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 10 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Special trusts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Clause 14 repeals part 14 of the Charities Act 2011, which deals with special trusts, because most of it is now redundant. The content of section 287 of the 2011 Act, which sets out the definition of special trusts, is retained but transferred to section 353 of that Act.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Small ex gratia payments
Nigel Huddleston
Clauses 15 and 16 allow charities to make relatively small payments where there is a moral obligation to make a payment but no legal power to do so. This can be done without seeking Charity Commission approval if the payment falls below the threshold set out in the Bill, which is dependent on the size of the charity. The requirement for prior authorisation from the Charity Commission, the Attorney General or, in some cases, the court to make these small payments can be burdensome, and the cost disproportionate to the size of the payments.
The clauses also rephrase the test that charities must use in deciding whether to authorise ex gratia payments. That will allow charities to delegate decisions about ex gratia payments to their staff if they wish to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Scope of Part 7 of the Charities Act 2011
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
These clauses address some unnecessary administrative burdens, clarifying and simplifying the law around the buying and selling of charity land, and removing ineffective and burdensome statutory requirements.
Clause 17 clarifies which land held for or on behalf of a charity is affected by the requirements in part 7 of the Charities Act 2011. Clause 18 makes changes to the exceptions to those requirements. It also removes redundant provisions as a consequence of the repeal of provisions in the Universities and College Estates Act 1925.
Clause 19 removes the automatic requirement for charities to advertise the disposal of land as advised in a surveyor’s report. It instead allows trustees the freedom to consider a surveyor’s advice and decide the best choice for their charity.
Clause 20 lays the groundwork for secondary legislation to expand the range of advisers a charity can call upon when seeking advice on land disposals. The current restrictions on who can advise charities in land transactions place on charities unnecessary cost burdens that can be disproportionate to the value and complexity of the land disposal. Clause 20 anticipates future changes to expand the list of advisers, allowing charities to seek a more tailored approach to disposals of land, as trustees will have more flexibility to choose the most appropriate adviser for their transaction.
Jeff Smith
The Opposition agree with the clauses, which are sensible measures with sufficient safeguards that should produce a clearer and easier legal framework for buying, selling, leasing and mortgaging charity land.
We note that the Government decided to reject the recommendation to remove the statutory requirement to give public notice of land disposals. We are not against that decision, but I wonder whether there is scope for keeping that under review, and whether we might move from a less all-encompassing system, with a blanket rule for all disposals, to something more risk based. We do not propose that that should be part of the Bill, but I ask the Minister to keep that under review for future legislation.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As we have seen in this tidying up of legislation and rules relating to charities, there is a need for constant and periodic review. We will of course take into account the views of the Law Commission and the Charity Commission, as well as the Opposition’s comments. If further tidying up is required in future legislation, we are always open to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 18 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Advice etc from charity trustees, officers and employees
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Clause 21 provides clarity on whether an individual associated with a charity—an employee, officer or trustee, for example—can act as the designated adviser in land disputes. There is no reason why charities should not have access to any relevant in-house expertise that is available to them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Residential tenancies granted to employees
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Clause 22 allows charities to grant short-term residential tenancies to employees without Charity Commission consent by changing the definition of a “connected person” in section 118 of the Charities Act 2011. This change will make it easier for charities to use their assets to run their organisations more efficiently—to facilitate an employee’s work by allowing them to stay on site in the short term, for example—without having to seek permission from the Charity Commission.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Information to be included in certain instruments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Clause 23 protects buyers of charity land by resolving gaps in the wording of contracts concerning charity land transactions. This minor and technical change is necessary to save time and costs for purchasers, who currently have to check that statutory requirements have been complied with. That can deter buyers and increase costs for the charities that are selling the land.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Amendments of the Universities and College Estates Act 1925
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Clause 24 and the associated schedule 1 simplify the Universities and College Estates Act 1925, and remove layers of administration for charities that fall under that Act. These minor technical changes clear up bureaucracy in land transactions for those charities.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial interests in relation to universities and charities. I rise to say that, generally, these technical amendments are positive and reduce burdens on universities. However, I do think that there is a wider philosophical discussion to be had—probably not for this Bill, but more broadly—about the role of universities in disposing of land that they might not have acquired themselves but were given. Often that land is given at public expense, and includes heritage assets. Universities should not see those assets as pure money transactions but as heritage transactions. They have a wider duty to the public to look after and maintain those assets, and ensure that they are disposed of in a way that continues that maintenance.
I support the reduction of bureaucracy for universities and charities, but it is important to put on the record that universities should consider not just the business importance of their estate, but its wider social importance.
Nigel Huddleston
As the hon. Gentleman would expect, in my role as the Minister for Heritage, I agree with the principles that he set out. I do not believe that that is strictly the purpose of the Bill, which is very much about procedure, but he has put his comments on the record. I think most hon. Members would agree with the intent and thrust of what he said about universities’ responsibility to look after their heritage assets.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 25
Working names etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Part 3 of the Bill includes clauses 25 to 28, which relate to the Charity Commission’s power to direct a charity to change its name. The adoption by a charity of a name that is similar to another charity’s name, or that is offensive, can lead to the public being misled, donations being made to the wrong charity and reputational damage for individual charities and, indeed, the entire sector.
Clause 25 extends the Charity Commission’s existing power to direct a charity to change its name to cover working names. Working names are names that charities are known by, but which are different from their registered name. Comic Relief, for example, is a working name of a charity called Charity Projects. The change closes a loophole that would allow charities to continue to operate with an inappropriate working name. The definition of “working names” has been considered in great detail and clarifications have been added to the explanatory notes in response to questions and comments from the Charity Law Association.
Clauses 26 and 27 allow the Charity Commission to delay registering a charity on the basis of an inappropriate name. They also allow the Charity Commission to delay changing a charity’s name on the register in order to give enough time to address the issue properly. This is subject to a maximum delay period. Clause 28 ensures that the Charity Commission can also direct an exempt charity to change its name, as it can for charities that are not exempt. The Charity Commission would be required by the Charities Act 2011 to first consult with an exempt charity’s principal regulator before making such a direction.
This group of changes provides the Charity Commission with clear and effective powers in the rare cases where a charity adopts an inappropriate name. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Jeff Smith
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown jogs my memory in relation to the register of interests. I did declare in our Second Reading Committee that I am a trustee of the charity Drug Science. I perhaps ought to put that on the record in Committee as well.
The Opposition support the measures in clauses 25 to 28. They are sensible safeguards that will not only make life less bureaucratic for charities, but will actually have a role in protecting the public from being misled. They are important parts of the Bill. However, there was some concern from charity lawyers that, because the working name proposals were not part of the original report, they may not have been given as much consideration as other parts of the Bill—in terms of unintended consequences and so on. The Opposition support the measures in the clauses, but we would ask for some kind of post-legislative review to make sure that they are working correctly.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I rise generally to support clause 25, but I wish to put on record a note of caution about historic charities that might have competing or similar names. The Charity Commission must act with caution in those cases. My background is in youth organisations, of which there are a number that take the name “Scouts”. They might not be part of the official UK scouting group we know or be affiliated to the international World Organisation of the Scout Movement, but they are Scouts in the sense of the Baden-Powell scouting groups. The same goes for the Woodcraft Folk and others.
It is important that the Charity Commission does not act in a heavy-handed manner, but ensures that it is responsive and light-touch only when there is deliberate confusion taking place, not when a bigger organisation might just not like what a smaller organisation is doing, even though they have both been active for many years. I think it is important that the Charity Commission hear that. I am sure the Minister with his other hat on would agree with that as well.
Nigel Huddleston
In answer to the first question, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington is right that clause 25 is not based on a formal proposal in the Law Commission’s consultation. Instead, the recommendation arose from the consultation and was then discussed with the Charity Law Association. That was the genesis of this proposal, and it is not an unusual occurrence in Law Commission projects and reports for that to happen.
With regard to the criteria, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown mentioned, the message of reasonableness and being sensible is key. The Charity Commission does have operational guidance, which caseworkers use to determine whether they consider a name to be offensive. The Commission has to date not needed to issue a direction that a charity had to change its name because it was considered offensive. We do not consider that the proposed changes will change the frequency or likelihood of a controversy where a charity’s name is found to be offensive, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments, which seem eminently sensible, have been noted.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 26 to 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Powers relating to appointments of trustees
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Clause 29 allows the Charity Commission to confirm that the election of a trustee that may previously have been considered defective or uncertain should be treated as if a valid election had taken place. It will create consistency with the commission’s powers to determine a charity’s members and provide certainty going forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Remuneration of charity trustees etc providing goods or services to charity
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Clause 30 addresses an anomaly in the current law under which trustees can be paid for services provided to their charity for both goods and services but not for goods alone. Allowing the remuneration of trustees for the provision of goods gives charities the opportunity to use their in-house contacts and to potentially source goods at better than market rates, saving valuable funds.
Clause 31 gives the Charity Commission powers to order a charity to pay a trustee for work they have completed for the charity where it would be unjust not to pay the trustee for that work. Such payments are rare and currently require authorisation by the court: although they will continue to be rare, the clause means the commission can provide authorisation, which will avoid the time and expense of going to court.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Trustee of charitable trust: status as trust corporation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Clause 32 represents a minor technical change that automatically confers trust corporation status on any trustee of a charitable trust that is a body corporate. It will be particularly useful in a variety of scenarios, including incorporations and mergers. It will save charities time and expense, as the current routes to obtaining trust corporation status are time-consuming and cumbersome.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Gifts to merged charity
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Clause 33 enables gifts to a charity that has since merged to go to the new merged charity. It will mean that charities no longer have to maintain a shell charity on the register simply to collect gifts for a charity that has ceased to operate. It will save them and the Charity Commission an administrative burden.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Vesting declarations: exclusions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Clause 34 changes the types of property that are excluded from transfer during a merger. It is a technical change that clarifies charity law on mergers and removes redundant and outdated sections, including pre-1925 language on mortgages.
Clause 35 is a minor change to ensure the language in section 306 of the Charities Act 2011 is consistent with the new definition of “permanent endowment” brought in by clause 9 of the Bill. These technical changes remove administrative barriers, meaning a simpler and more cost-effective process for charities seeking to merge.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Costs incurred in relation to Tribunal proceedings etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Clause 36 allows the charity tribunal to make authorised costs orders to protect trustees from individually carrying the costs of charity proceedings. An authorised costs order will confirm in advance that the cost of proceedings can properly come from a charity’s funds, preventing trustees from being discouraged from raising genuine grievances.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Public notice as regards Commission orders etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Clause 37 extends the Charity Commission’s discretionary power to give public notice, or require a charity to give public notice, for an order under the Charities Act 2011. This power will now extend to instances where the Charity Commission is required to give consent, for example, if a charity wishes to change the purposes in its governing document.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
“Connected person”: illegitimate children
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Clauses 38 and 39 remove language that is outdated from the definition of a connected person. They also allow for secondary legislation to change this definition in the future. The ability to amend the definition of a connected person through secondary legislation provides the Secretary of State with the flexibility to ensure the regulatory regime is effective in modern times.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Minor and consequential provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Clause 40 gives effect to schedule 2, which contains minor and consequential amendments resulting from the Bill. Where appropriate, these amendments have been referred to and explained above under the clauses to which they relate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 41
Extent, commencement and short title
Nigel Huddleston
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 41, page 30, line 15, leave out subsection (7).
This amendment would remove the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.
Nigel Huddleston
The amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted in the Lords. For Bills starting in the House of Lords, a privilege amendment is included to recognise the right of this place to control any charges on the people and on public funds. It is standard practice to remove such amendments at this stage of the Bill’s passage through the House of Commons.
I also speak to clause 41 in this group. Clause 41 makes provision about the extent, the coming into force and the short title of the Bill. Clause 41 will come into effect on the day on which the Act is passed. Other provisions will come into force when the Secretary of State makes regulations by statutory instrument. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will work with the Charity Commission on an implementation plan to bring the provisions into effect in stages after Royal Assent.
Jeff Smith
I will speak very briefly because this is really a technical clause. The Opposition agree with the Government’s amendment and with clause 41. The Minister referred to the implementation plan; Baroness Barran said at Committee stage in the Lords that the Government would publish an implementation plan before the Bill completes its passage through the House. Given that we are now at the end of the Committee stage and we do not yet have a date for Report and Third Reading, I will put on record my request to the Minister for an update on the progress of an implementation plan.
Nigel Huddleston
I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments. DCMS is working with the Charity Commission on the Bill’s implementation. We will announce further information in due course. If I am able to provide more information shortly, I will give it to the hon. Gentleman and others.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Nigel Huddleston
I would like to thank you, Mr Twigg, all the officials, stakeholders, the charities themselves, the Commissions and everybody involved in the Bill’s progress today. I thank the Opposition, as well as Members on this side of the House, for the co-operation and attention they have given to this very important Bill. It will make a meaningful difference to the charities impacted.
Jeff Smith
May I briefly echo the Minister’s comments? It is a highly technical Bill and an awful lot of work has gone on behind the scenes by the Law Commission, the Lords and the Clerks, which we should put on record. I thank all who have been involved, and also thank members of the Committee for their attendance today.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
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
Cost of Living
(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
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate. This is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the cost of living in the UK.
I am delighted to have secured this debate today. It is very timely, and I honestly do not think that anything occupies the minds of constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran or indeed any other constituency more than this issue. It affects everyone. Everyone has noticed that their monthly outgoings are rising. Energy costs are up. Food prices are up. Fuel prices are up. Clothes prices are up. In that context, it is no surprise that consumer borrowing is also up, which will throw many into unsustainable debt as they struggle to keep up with essential bills. There can be no doubt that we are caught up in a genuine, biting cost of living crisis. It is simply not good enough that while our families, our communities and our pensioners are suffering, the Government are eating themselves alive over whether the Prime Minister knew he was actually at a party when he attended a party at the address where he lives.
I want to begin by saying a few words about the cost of energy. Gas and electricity bills are expected to rise significantly in April, when the energy price cap is predicted to reach £2,000 a year or £165 a month. That represents a 45% increase, although there are reports of even steeper rises. It is no wonder that National Energy Action believes that 6 million households will be in fuel poverty by April. That is a 50% increase from last year and it will hit hardest the poorest families, who spend most on energy as a proportion of their income. The reality is that wages are simply not keeping pace with the rise in the cost of living, as the Office for National Statistics has highlighted, with the Office for Budget Responsibility indicating that average real wages will be lower in 2026 than they were in 2008. Instead of a rising price cap, an emergency financial package must be introduced to support the most vulnerable and help families to cope during this crisis. The cost of living crisis is real and will only worsen as energy bills rise, alongside regressive tax hikes and inflation, pushing more and more people into poverty.
In addition the ending of the uplift to universal credit and working tax credit is imposing the biggest overnight cut to welfare in 70 years. The situation for too many of our constituents is critical. The changes to the universal credit taper rate are welcome, but they are not enough to help those who are struggling with this perfect storm of financial pressures. Let us not forget that apart from the suffering that the cut in universal credit will cause for those on low incomes, it will take £460 million out of Scotland’s economy. That money would be spent in local shops, stimulating local economies in communities in each and every town and city.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this vital debate. Behind those headline figures is a 30-year high in inflation. As she rightly stated, that disproportionately affects the poorest in our communities. Jack Monroe, known on Twitter as BootstrapCook, has written for The Guardian and referred to those real-life experiences. For example, a 500-gram bag of pasta that was 29p is 70p today. That is a 141% price increase. And it goes on and on and on. The hon. Member is right to point out that people on universal credit have had that massive cut of £1,000 a year or £20 a week. That money must be restored.
Patricia Gibson
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the cut to universal credit is beyond words in its cruelty and its insensitivity to the struggles that real people face every day. It is a cruel irony that, just as the Scottish Government introduced the Scottish child payment, the UK Government chose to remove the £20 universal credit uplift across the UK—pulling the rug away from struggling households in Scotland. That example really crystallises a tale of two Governments.
Yesterday, I heard hon. Members in the main Chamber say, “If the SNP is so concerned about the cost of living crisis, it should do more in Scotland to support people who are suffering.” I say to the Minister that in Scotland the hated Tory bedroom tax—a tax, incidentally, that hits the disabled hardest—has been fully mitigated by the Scottish Government. I do not have time to mention all the support that the Scottish Government have brought in, using their own fixed budget, to support those who are suffering. It is deeply ironic that Members in this House talk about how the Scottish Government could do more when they are the very people who imposed the constraints that limit the Scottish Government’s powers to do just that. Give us the powers; if we have the powers, we will do more. The irony of calling for the Scottish Government to do more while tying their hands behind their back is well noted in Scotland.
However, the UK Government have a rich array of powers with which they could help to tackle this cost of living crisis—if the political will existed. They could introduce a real living wage. A real living wage would, as it says on the tin, relate to the cost of living—unlike the current, pretendy living wage. They could increase statutory sick pay, which is among the lowest in Europe. Unless the real living wage replaces the pretendy living wage, more and more people will find that they have less to live on as their pay is eroded by the rising cost of living.
The sad fact is that, shamefully, the UK has the highest poverty rate and the worst levels of inequality in all of north-west Europe, with 11.7% living in relative poverty. Around two thirds—68%—of working-age adults in poverty in the UK live in households with at least one adult working. That figure is at an all-time high. Poverty is driving unsustainable debt, with around 3.8 million households carrying an estimated £5.2 billion of arrears in household bills—a figure that has tripled since the start of the pandemic. People are borrowing more to pay for basics and essential bills.
Further, the Chancellor could cut VAT on energy bills and provide emergency loans to energy companies that are teetering on the brink. He could rule out a rise in the energy price cap and reintroduce the £20 per week uplift in universal credit. If the political will existed—and I fear that it does not—the UK Government could replicate the Scottish Government’s child payment across the UK.
As household energy bills soar, fuel costs are rising too. That does not just hit motorists hard; it also has a wider impact on industry because it pushes up the price of food, goods and services. Amid all the pain being suffered by our constituents and communities, we are approaching the highest tax burden since the early 1950s because of the national insurance hike. The consequences for our poorest could not be more stark; they could barely be more harsh. The national insurance hike means that workers earning as little as £10,000 will soon pay a national insurance rate of 14.25%, regardless of income. If student loan repayments are included, graduates earning just over £27,000 will pay a marginal tax rate of 42.25%—and the Tories call themselves the party of low taxation! All of that will act as a drag on recovery. UK consumer confidence is at its lowest level for 11 months, as people understandably worry about surging inflation, which is expected to rise to a staggering 7% by the spring.
It looks much bleaker when we factor in the Brexit effect, which I know the Government do not like to talk about, but let us do so for a minute. The Office for Budget Responsibility—the UK Government’s own forecaster—suggests that the worst is yet to come. Make UK is an organisation representing 20,000 manufacturers, and it has said that Brexit will undoubtedly add to soaring consumer costs this year. Squeezed supply chains are under pressure, with customs delays, border red tape and labour shortages, and additional costs ultimately borne by consumers.
Last month, as the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) indicated in his intervention, we saw £15 added to the average price of groceries. The rate of food price increases is set to increase further this year, just as the national insurance hike is set to bite into pay packets in April.
Let us not forget the promises that were made—the pictures that were painted of the sunny uplands—as we approached Brexit. We were told that VAT on energy bills would be scrapped. Now we are told we cannot do that because it would be a “blunt instrument”. We were told that the price of food would go down. In the wake of Brexit, this message slightly changed to there will be “adequate food”, but we see the price of food rising fast.
It seems that there is one rule for one and one rule for another. As the Minister will stand up and tell us, there are lots of reasons why he cannot do more, there are lots of reasons why the Government cannot do more and hard choices have to be made. In that context, I cannot help but remember the words of Lord Agnew yesterday when he talked about the £4.3 billion of covid loans conveniently written off by the Treasury. He said “arrogance, indolence and ignorance” were at the heart of Government and were freezing “the Government machine”. He said:
“Schoolboy errors…allowing more than 1,000 companies”
that were
“not even trading when Covid struck”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2022; Vol. 818, c. 20.]
to have loans could not be justified. I wonder how much pain people like the ordinary man in the street would have been saved by a cash injection from the Treasury of £4.3 billion.
We cannot forget the poor deal for pensioners in this crisis. The WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—have already been left high and dry as their pension age was increased with little or no notice, throwing their retirement plans into chaos. I want to head off once again the allegation that if the SNP Government are so concerned, they can help the WASPI women. I simply quote that section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 prevents the Scottish Government from providing support on reserved areas, including pensions assistance or assistance by reason of old age. Once again, we need to burst the myth that the Scottish Government can solve the WASPI problem. It is a problem of the Government’s own making and it is down to them to fix it. If the Scottish Government had the powers, we would be happy to do so with all the levers of an independent country.
Those who have finally reached state pension age now find they are being clobbered again as the triple lock has been abandoned—right in the middle of a cost of living crisis. State pensions have to keep pace with the cost of living, otherwise, we will see older people languishing in poverty as the threat of a rise in morbidity from the cold looms large this winter. I will say that again, because it is outrageous: there is an expectation this winter that the death from the cold among older people will rise. I do not even know what to say about that, it is so appalling.
Pensioner poverty has risen to a 15-year high under this Government’s watch as 985,065 pensioners have been directly impacted by the breaking of the triple lock, despite the fact that UK pensions are the least generous in north-west Europe. Not only are they the least generous but they have been clobbered by this Government in the middle of a cost of living crisis. It is simply not good enough for the Government to fiddle while households, pensioners and one in four children in the UK suffer poverty as a result of the choices the Government are making—and it is a result of the choices they are making. The cost of living crisis is not inevitable, although of course there are factors at play such as global energy challenges and the all-too-predictable consequences of Brexit driving up prices due to supply issues.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I am grateful that my hon. Friend mentioned energy prices. Does she agree that the UK Government’s penchant for reducing investment in onshore wind farms, as well as removing subsidies for offshore specifically in Scotland, undermines not only renewable energy but the production of the cheapest energy that this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can provide, which would otherwise lower energy costs for our constituents?
Patricia Gibson
Absolutely. That is yet another example of this Government’s skewed priorities—no joined-up thinking, no strategic thinking. Of course, at the moment, they are a Government who are not focused on governing, but are tearing themselves apart with their own internal struggles.
However, there is action that the Government can, and should, take to see people through this perfect storm of rising costs. To stand by and do nothing to alleviate this very real crisis while so many of our constituents across the UK suffer—including the Minister’s constituents—is not acceptable and, as I said, shows skewed priorities. It punishes those on low pay. It punishes those seeking work and pushes them further away from the job market, because poverty creates barriers to work that need not be there. Perhaps worst of all, it punishes those whose health prevents them from working. Among all that, it punishes the children in all the households that are struggling during these difficult times, because it blights their childhood with poverty. I can tell the Minister that the scars of childhood poverty do not easily heal and are never forgotten. If this Government wanted to, they could do more. They could use their powers for good, to protect and support those they are supposed to serve. I urge the Minister to make the case to his Government to do so.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this worthwhile and timely debate. I apologise for not being able to take part in yesterday’s debate, but it is really important that we talk about how we can help households and families in our constituencies that are facing the real pressure of increased house prices, and all the anxiety and difficulties that go with that. I agree that the Government must do what they can to mitigate increasing living costs, particularly for low and fixed-income families.
I regularly host drop-ins across west Cornwall, where people can come along and raise whatever issue they like. I try to do so in every part of my constituency: like many Members present, I represent a large rural area, and it is important that I get to where people are. Many people, pensioners in particular, have come to me in recent months. Those households have worked hard to plan for their retirement, but find that their pension has become less able to meet their basic living costs—a position that they never expected to be in. These are not just pensioners on the state pension who might be getting pension credit: there are those who have a small pension in addition, but are finding that costs are outrunning their income.
I have also come across several families whose rent costs have rocketed over the past couple of years—an issue that I raised in this Chamber last month. It is really important that the Government look at how we can manage and protect housing supply, particularly in places such as Cornwall, which is a very attractive place to visit and possibly an attractive place to buy a second home or bolthole. That forces up the price of homes for the people living there, and that is true for lots of other constituencies, particularly coastal ones. The Government must look more earnestly at increasing the availability of rental properties and homes to buy by protecting them for permanent residents. When we build new homes, it is important that they meet a local need, as is the case in St Ives, which is part of my constituency. This is about the cost of housing and rent.
Mike Amesbury
Would not part of the solution be to build homes for social rent, allocated to local residents? Fewer than 6,000 of those homes were built last year. Would the hon. Member agree that homes for social rent must certainly be a big part of the solution?
Derek Thomas
I completely would, and I welcome that intervention. However, in parts of the country, including my constituency, families with fairly decent incomes who would never qualify for that list are also seeing their rents rocketing. We are talking about the nurses, teachers and police officers we need to come to take jobs in Cornwall, or stay in the county, and who cannot afford the rents they are expected to pay.
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. Cornwall County Council, now under a Conservative administration, is ramping up the provision of social rental properties. That meets the needs of a particular group of constituents, but does not reach or solve the whole problem.
In view of the rising costs of housing, Cornish MPs are arguing in favour of protecting new buildings for permanent residents only, which will help to protect those homes for local need. I agree that we need to look at every tool available to ensure that people have secure homes for life that they can feel safe in. Those homes should be built efficiently, so that rising energy costs, which I will address in a minute, can be managed, so that we are not just heating up the planet when we are trying to heat our homes.
I want to touch briefly on energy costs. My understanding at the moment is that the cost of production of energy has not risen. Companies that are producing it, not all of them based in the UK, are making colossal sums of money due to demand. I am interested to hear from the Minister what the Government are looking to do to bring the cost that suppliers pay for energy closer to the cost of production.
Another area to look at is the feed-in tariff. For example, customers are seeing energy prices increase and that is expected to carry on this year, but those who are feeding into the energy supply, through solar panels or wind turbines they have invested in, are not seeing any change in the money they receive for that energy. It seems sensible for the Minister to look at whether the feed-in tariff should be tracked against the energy costs people pay.
There is no doubt that the energy market needs reform, but right now urgent help is needed for households most hit by energy prices. I heard the calls for a cut in VAT, but householders concerned about energy costs have already worked extremely hard to reduce the amount of energy they use, sometimes choosing not to heat their homes in order to feed their families. The VAT element of the bill for those families will be tiny: they might save £20 or £30, perhaps a little more, a year in VAT. If I owned several electric cars, a couple of hot tubs, maybe a swimming pool, and a massive house with lights on all the time, the savings I would make from the VAT cut would be significant. We are not helping the households that most need it with the headline-grabbing promise to cut VAT on energy.
There must be targeted and effective help for the families I have referred to, the pensioners, people on fixed incomes and low-income households. There should be cash to help with energy bills and, at the same time, an effective way to improve people’s homes. We have had lots of schemes recently where large amounts of money have been made available for people to retrofit their homes. In Cornwall, builders—people involved in construction—were already run off their feet with building homes and looking after Cornwall’s homes and did not choose to take up those offers. People came in from different parts of the country to retrofit homes, not doing it properly or effectively, and often going bust before they got found out.
Lots of Government money was wasted while the homes were not actually improved. The Government need to look carefully at how we retrofit homes, probably through local authorities, where that can be targeted and effective. Ultimately, not now but in the near future, the Government with their sizeable majority could properly reform the energy market so that the poorest families paid hardly anything—if anything—for energy, and those more demanding homes paid more.
Derek Thomas
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I ought to finish, because I am getting the eye.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that energy market reform also requires a reform of transmission charges? While in most parts of England a subsidy will be given to provide energy, north of a certain line north of London people have to charge to produce energy to put it on to the national grid, and that reduces the ability of renewables to lower energy costs.
Derek Thomas
I agree that there is a need for a time out to properly look at the energy market and how it works. The price cap we introduced a few years back was helpful and certainly it is helping right now; my understanding is that the variable tariff is the best to be on. However, I met policy advisers some years ago to discuss some sort of block tier energy price, where the first units paid are extremely cheap or free and the more units someone uses, the more they have to pay. We have to retrofit the poorer homes to make sure that does not penalise them, but there is a need in the energy market to make those who can afford it contribute to the cost of energy for those who cannot. It is not a luxury; it is something that we need to care about. We do care about it, and we need to do something.
Several hon. Members rose—
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that I will be starting speeches from Front-Bench spokespersons at 10.28 am and no later than that. Can hon. Members adjust their times accordingly?
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Thank you, Mrs Cummins. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on facilitating the debate. It is such an important one at this time and I am pleased to contribute.
The cost of living crisis being experienced around the UK has been created and compounded by a series of UK Government failures, all reaching an awful crescendo, it seems, at the same time—a decade of austerity, savage cuts to welfare, chaos and shortages brought by Brexit, inept handling of the pandemic and Ministers’ shameful failure to mitigate and anticipate against rising energy prices. As is so often the case under the Government, it is those with the least who will suffer the most from the price cap increase.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation finds that households on low incomes will spend a staggering average 18% of their income, after housing costs, on their energy bills from April. For single adult households on low incomes that rises to an extraordinary 54%: an increase of 21 percentage points since 2019-20. The climate deniers among the Tories—one in 15 of them according to a recent survey by The Independent, although I will point out that the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) is not among their number—like to peddle a narrative that environmental levies are to blame for high energy costs. However, analysis by Carbon Brief has found that energy bills in the UK are nearly £2.5 billion higher than they would have been if climate policies had not been scrapped over the past decade.
Those cuts included gutting energy-efficiency subsidies, effectively banning onshore wind in England, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) mentioned, and scrapping the zero carbon homes standard. The latter move, as Lord Deben, the Chair of the Committee on Climate Change has pointed out, has resulted in hundreds of thousands of insufficiently insulated homes continuing to be built in the years since, effectively pushing the costs for bringing their insulation and energy systems up to scratch on to homeowners and off housing developers’ balance sheets. Those cuts were made after a front page by The Sun in November 2013 reported that the then Prime Minister David Cameron’s answer to rising energy bills was to get rid of “all the green crap”.
The hikes in energy prices, along with the cuts to universal credit and increasing national insurance contributions, are forcing local and national Governments to take even more action to protect our citizens. In the past eight years, the Scottish Government have spent £1 billion tackling fuel poverty and improving energy efficiency in homes and created a £10 million fuel and security fund, which gives direct help to those who might otherwise have been forced to ration or disconnect altogether from their energy supply. The Scottish Parliament also passed the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Act 2019, which commits to drastically reducing the number of households living in fuel poverty in Scotland by 2040. Even before the expected energy price cap rise in April, one in three Scots is struggling to cover their energy bills—a Citizens Advice Scotland survey found that 36% of people in Scotland say their energy bills are unaffordable.
I know how hard this is hitting many people in my constituency of Edinburgh North and Leith. For example, my constituent Imogen lives with her husband, two teenage children and very elderly parents, who live above her in a self-contained flat. Over the past two years, their heating bills have increased because Imogen’s husband is now working at home full time due to covid, she works part time at home, and her parents need the heating on a lot as they are in their late 80s to 90s and are now not very mobile.
After the family’s energy supplier went bust, they were shunted on to another one. The first direct debit was not taken, leaving the family in a state of uncertainty about how much they were paying. Eventually, Imogen was able to set up another direct debit, but only after numerous stressful attempts to contact the new energy provider, as the company did not attempt to contact them. The family’s current energy bills are approximately £3,000 a year, and that looks likely to increase to £4,500 after the rise in the energy price cap. As you can imagine, Mrs Cummins, she and her husband are extremely concerned about how they will cover such a hike. Many more of my constituents will be facing anxieties similar to those that Imogen and her family are dealing with, with many further facing that dreadful choice to heat or eat in coming months.
Citizens Advice Scotland says that of those struggling to cover their energy bills, 40% cite low incomes as a reason, while 12% say that inconsistent incomes make it difficult to afford to pay for their utilities. That is why the Scottish Government’s promotion of the real living wage across all sectors is so important, helping to ensure that Scotland has the lowest percentage of earners earning below that living wage in the UK.
Our Scottish Government public sector pay policy underlines our commitment to tackle poverty by introducing a public sector wage floor of £10.50 per hour from April 2022, with additional funding for local government to ensure that that applies to adult social care workers in commissioned services. The UK Government must act to make work pay by increasing minimum wage rates and the totally inadequate statutory sick pay, in line with the real living wage.
The Conservative Government’s contemptuous treatment of those on low pay is also reflected, of course, in their latest attack on lifeline welfare payments, with the enormous cuts in the incomes of families on universal credit and working tax credit. In Edinburgh North and Leith, 13% of working age households were impacted, with 34% of that number being working-age families with children.
It all comes on top of more than a decade of Tory Government austerity, which the SNP Scottish Government are having to work very hard to mitigate. The fixed Scottish budget funds the Scottish Government’s priorities of tackling child poverty and inequality by targeting over £4 billion in social security payments. That includes the doubling of the game-changing Scottish child payment to £20 a week from April 2022. The Child Poverty Action Group welcomed that, calling it a
“lifeline for…families across Scotland”.
Consumer prices were 5.4% higher in December 2021 than a year before. That is the highest inflation rate recorded in 30 years. However, as we have heard already, food campaigner Jack Monroe’s excellent Twitter thread, which highlights huge price hikes for basics such as pasta, baked beans and rice, shows how that figure grossly underestimates the real cost of inflation for families on minimum wages, zero-hours contracts, and those forced to food banks. She also highlighted the manufacturers’ sneaky practice of making products smaller while keeping the same price—known as “shrinkflation”.
This Tory Government might be able to ignore Brexit chaos and the rampant cronyism, dark money and corruption in British politics, but they cannot keep ignoring poverty and people on low incomes any longer. As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, the UK has the highest poverty rate of any country in north-west Europe, and the worst inequality for every year of this century.
We call on the UK Government to urgently tackle the cost of living crisis by cutting VAT on energy bills and categorically ruling out a rise in the energy price cap. We must also see an emergency financial package to help families by reversing cuts to universal credit, delivering a low-income energy payment, matching the Scottish child payment UK-wide, introducing a real living wage, and increasing statutory sick pay in line with that real living wage. The UK Government could also choose to act now by providing everyone eligible for cold weather payment with a one-off payment to help those on lowest incomes with fuel bills. That would mirror what the Scottish Government will do when they take on responsibility for cold weather payments from next winter.
We must never forget that Governments, particularly those with all the economic levers of a normal country at their command, have choices. They can choose either to support, and treat with respect and dignity, those among us who need a helping hand, or to scorn their vulnerability and do everything possible to put obstacles in their way while sneering that they do not deserve our help. I know which Government I prefer.
The question must be asked: why is Scotland having to protect its citizens from the right-wing policies and vicious ideologies of successive Tory Governments when Scotland did not vote for those Governments? It is time for our independence and a fairer Scotland that does everything in its power to protect and support its citizens.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing today’s important debate, which keeps a spotlight on an issue that impacts every person across the UK—including in my constituency. The current rate of inflation is 5.4%, which is the highest it has been in three decades. The Bank of England expects the consumer prices index to peak at around 6% in April, but others have a grimmer forecast—Goldman Sachs expects it to hit around 6.9%.
The cost of living crisis must not be underestimated; every essential will cost more and every penny must stretch ever further. In-work poverty has become more common, which is ironic under the leadership of a Government who claim to incentivise work. In April, benefits will be uplifted in line with inflation, but as inflation stood in September; inflation was only at 3.1% then, so this will represent around a 3% real-terms cut in 2022. In October, the Government chose to remove the £20 universal credit uplift, which is needed now more than ever. That was before inflation hit its current high.
There are some obvious areas that we can immediately recognise as stressors, such as energy prices and the cost of food, but there are other problems that we might not see so suddenly. Social housing, one of the UK’s greatest supports for low-income families, is in short supply; demand simply cannot be met, so we see people forced towards an unaffordable rental market. In the year until September 2021, rent across the UK had already risen an average of 8.6%. If Greater London is excluded, that figure lessens, but only to 6.6%. Private properties, for the vast majority, require a hefty deposit, which is a huge upfront cost. We know that it is often cheaper in the long run to spend more in the short term, but that is not an option for those on lower incomes. Homeowners face anxieties too, as the interest rates on mortgages increase; they may struggle to keep up and there is a possibility that some may lose their homes—the roof over their families’ heads.
Another worry is car insurance. It is cheaper to pay it annually in a lump sum than monthly, the cost of which has just hit a 12-month high. A car might seem like a luxury, but for so many it is a necessity; it is how people commute in rural areas or in areas where there are poor transport links, and how people undertake caring responsibilities for family members. Those on low incomes are also more likely to have a poor credit rating and less likely to recover from debt—they may need to access short-term, high-interest payday loans. Previously, these loans may have been used to cover unexpected large expenses, such as a car breaking down or to replace white goods. However, there is a real risk that these loans are now going to be taken, out of necessity, to cover basic living expenses.
Credit cards pose the same risk; what happens when next month rolls around and people have the same expenses to cover but a couple of hundred pounds less in the bank to cover last month’s lending? It is a dangerous cycle and one that the Government must do everything in their power to prevent—these are not options that people should have to consider.
What if someone becomes sick? Statutory sick pay in the UK is the worst in Europe, at £96.35 per week. From April, a full-time job earning the national living wage is over £230 per week. I had a constituent contact me last week because she had missed the deadline for the warm home discount. She has no frequent internet access, a pay-as-you-go SIM card and she did not have the money to top up and call her supplier in time, so she lost out.
The Government cannot rest on their laurels any longer. Their own Back Benchers are calling for the national insurance hike to be scrapped; even the Chancellor is seeking to distance himself from it. It is clear that there is a need for action. I plead with the Minister and his colleagues: please, do not leave it until it is too late. Let us help our constituents through this difficult time.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is an absolute pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on leading the debate and on her important contribution; she knows about this subject, and speaks with real passion and belief. I am always encouraged whenever I hear her speak and, like other hon. Members present, I wholeheartedly support her on this issue. I could not attend a debate on this subject in the Chamber yesterday, because I was speaking here in a different debate—much as I may try, I cannot be in two places at once—so it is great to be present to endorse what the hon. Lady has said and support her fully.
This is a topic that applies to the whole United Kingdom. Although some housing matters are devolved, the issue remains the same across all of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The cost of living has been rising since early 2021, but in December 2021—just a few weeks ago—inflation reached its highest recorded level in decades, affecting the ability of households to afford goods and services. That is what this debate is about: affording the basics of life. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) gave a couple of examples that illustrate the issue of food prices. Consumer prices were 5.4% higher in December 2021 than the year before—just 12 months earlier—making it the highest inflation rate recorded since 1992.
The cost of living combines the prices of housing, fuel, electricity, food and domestic services. First, I will speak about the issue of house prices. The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) referred to house prices in his area. Prices in Northern Ireland, including in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), are the highest they have been for ages. It is putting people in real debt. I want to explain that, if I can, in the short time I have.
House prices increased by 10% in November 2021. The average property has risen by £20,000 in the last year—the fastest pace of increase in 15 years. That gives us an idea of how quickly this is galloping forward. Wages are not keeping track. I have been contacted by multiple constituents—young people, in particular—who simply cannot get on the property ladder because of those prices.
There has been a 25% drop in those aged 25 to 29 who have a mortgage because they feel that rent is a better option financially. The thing is, it is not a better option, because their rental prices are going through the roof as well. Houses that could previously have been rented for perhaps £375 to £400 a month now cost £550 to £600 a month. That is an extra £150 that they have to find, which they just do not have. The press has described the housing situation in Northern Ireland as a survival of the richest, as the majority of people simply cannot afford the rising price of houses. That is not the society I want; I want a society where we all have an equal opportunity to acquire a house.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the picture that he is outlining—of escalating house prices, the inflation rate going through the roof and energy prices rocketing—sends a message to the Government that there need to be urgent solutions? We all understand that it is difficult because of the times that we are living in, but those solutions are needed now, not in six months’ or two years’ time. A crisis is emerging that all families, and particularly working families, are going to be hit with.
Jim Shannon
I absolutely agree and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We look to the Minister to give us some encouragement. It is about now, not in six months’ time; it is about getting over this mountain that our constituents are dealing with because of the rise in prices. My hon. Friend is right.
We can argue that a wage increase could assist with those payments, but in reality the added finance that people are earning is going straight to paying for the cost of living. Two hon. Members who have spoken today, including the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), have referred to the issue of national insurance contributions. Today, it is being reported in the press that national insurance contributions may not actually be going up in April. I am not sure if that is true, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no smoke without fire. Whether that is down to the Chancellor or the Prime Minister, I am not sure, but if that is the case, at least it would be something that we could take as help for our constituents—things we can do now, not later, as everyone is referring to.
Last week, I spoke about the rising prices of fuel. The fact that the Government and, back home, the Northern Ireland Assembly are having to provide additional schemes for people to avail themselves of shows that people are struggling to cope. The Communities Minister brought a scheme to the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly to be endorsed: a £200 payment right away for those who are financially squeezed at this moment, and for those on benefits. We are doing it in Northern Ireland and I am sure that others are doing it elsewhere. Energy bills have already risen by a considerable amount and are set to rise to £2,000 per year from this April.
On my way to work each morning, I pass one of the oil companies in Newtownards, and they have prices up on the wall. Only about three months ago, the price of 900 litres of oil was £370—I remember, because I bought it at the time—but now it is £510. That is in a matter of months—my goodness! Those figures cannot be ignored. That is the reality right now. Such price rises will be detrimental to those already in fuel poverty. Recent statistics from National Energy Action estimate that between 1.2 million and 1.5 million households across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will struggle to pay their electricity or gas bills, adding to the cost of living in the UK.
On pension increases, a wee lady came to me to say, “Jim, tell me this: how will I spend the extra 25p I have in my pension?” What can I say to that honourable lady, who is a very good supporter of our party and of me individually? Twenty-five pence, my goodness! I have mentioned the price of oil and the price of food—as the hon. Member for Weaver Vale did, and as we all have. Twenty-five pence would not buy a loaf, a pint of milk—not even half a pint of milk—or a bar of chocolate. Twenty-five pence is a drop in the ocean, a ping on the ground; it is really nothing. I plead with the Minister for our pensioners. He is not ultimately responsible for this, but we need to have the discussions about what we need to do going forward.
The rising cost of food prices are contributing to the added cost of living. Food and non-alcoholic drink prices went up by 4.2% in the year to December 2021, on the official consumer price index measure of inflation. They may—they will—rise further in the coming months, and that contributes massively to the increase in families availing themselves of food banks. The Trussell Trust, which is in my constituency, delivered 2.5 million three-day packages over 2021. That was one of the highest figures in recent years.
In my constituency, the Trussell Trust in Newtownards indicated that it has done a third more food bank referrals. I know that we did it through our office by massive amounts on a year ago. That tells a story. People’s generosity to the food banks, with churches and individuals coming together, is massive, and we thank everyone who made contributions. However, we need to address the issues now.
At a time when many are struggling, I urge the Government to step in—because that is what we do. We do not always have the begging bowl out; it is about helping our people right now. I wish I had more time, but I do not, to go into detail about how badly the rise in the cost of living is impacting people. All too often, families struggle to make ends meet and the rise in prices for the most basic of daily needs is disheartening for so many. It depresses us no end.
To look towards the future, I also urge the Government and the Minister to remember that there will be a rise in national insurance, although I hope that today we will get an indication that that may not happen. We need such steps taken to help our people. The great thing about today is that all of us—all parties—are here together, but now we look to the Minister. His fellow Conservative, the hon. Member for St Ives, spoke convincingly about the issue. I think we have consensus across the Chamber on it, and we look to the Minister for encouragement to our constituents, and to ensure that the help that comes will come now and not later.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for securing this important debate. She made an excellent contribution, setting the scene. I also refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I will talk first about just one of my thousands of constituents who are suffering so terribly as a result of the Tory cost-of-living crisis. In 1944, he fought to defeat fascism on the beaches of Normandy. At the end of the war, he returned home to the promise of a land fit for heroes. But now, in his late 90s and living alone, he is terrified by the prospect that one day very soon his modest pension will not stretch to cover the costs of soaring energy bills and food prices. He is not alone: all across the country, millions of people are living in freezing houses, too afraid to turn the heating on, while others are going hungry so that their kids get a half decent meal.
Meanwhile, with energy prices set to soar by a further 45% by spring, and households bracing themselves for a national insurance tax bombshell, this Government seem far more concerned with their own internal turmoil than with finally getting to grips with this crisis. I put one very simple question to the Minister today: how on earth can he justify letting a man who risked his life to defend our freedoms worry about the cost of turning his heating on in the middle of winter?
Last autumn, I warned Ministers that the impact of rising energy costs and the cut to universal credit risked plunging thousands of people on the Wirral into poverty. At the time, Ministers lazily dismissed my concerns out of hand, and the Prime Minister himself called fears about inflation “unfounded”. My God! Even now, when confronted with the reality of the situation, this Government refuse to act.
My party has set out a credible plan to address the scourge of rising energy costs. I urge Ministers to finally put the interests of our country above those of the Conservative party, and to set about removing VAT from domestic energy bills and implementing a windfall tax on North sea gas and oil to support those most in need. But we must go further still. We must bring the energy sector back into public hands, so we can begin to slash bills for UK consumers and build a greener energy sector that is less dependent on foreign energy supplies. We must also acknowledge that energy is only one part of a much wider problem. For more than a decade, UK workers have seen their wages stagnate as prices have soared. Even our healthcare heroes, who have done so much to save lives and stop the spread of the terrible virus over the last two years, have not been spared, with last year’s measly 3% pay rise amounting to a pay cut in real terms.
The Government must act now. That means abandoning their plan for a national insurance hike, which threatens to hit low-income workers and small businesses hardest of all, and committing themselves to a £15 minimum wage, as called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald).
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the very first time, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this timely and important debate, and thank all Members who have taken part. We have had a wide range of contributions, highlighting various factors concerning the cost of living these days.
This Tory Government are proud of their success in getting people into work—it is trumpeted at every turn. However, what is the point of getting people into work if doing so does not help them to support their families to get the basics in life? A pretendy living wage just does not do that; it does not help them when they become sick and have to rely on an absolutely ludicrous statutory sick pay, and it does not help if they are a pensioner on the most meagre pension in the western world, or a WAPSI woman waiting and waiting for her pension to arrive.
The UK is one of the richest countries in the world, but the gap between the richest and poorest in our society continues to grow. Many of my constituents in Motherwell and Wishaw suffer under this Government. Energy bills will rise by 45% from April. “That is a worldwide issue,” say this Government. That is true, but what makes the difference is what a Government do to mitigate poverty. What do this Tory Government do? Very, very little. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, National Energy Action estimates that 6 million UK households will be living in fuel poverty by April—a 50% increase from April last year. I ask the Minister: what will be done about that? Inflation is rising, but the headline figures of predicted rises do not give the full picture. The think-tank Reform has said that inflation is hitting poorest families hardest.
Lorna Cooper from Paisley, the author of “Feed Your Family For £20 A Week”, prepared a shopping list and meal plan for January 2021 and then made a comparison this month. In 2021, the shopping list for the meal plan cost £20.21. This year, the cost is £25.88, which is a 23% increase. As we all know, many supermarket basic ranges no longer exist, and there cannot be many of us who have not already heard of the 141% rise in the cost of basic pasta.
This UK Tory Government have failed to address a cost of living crisis that will disproportionately affect disabled people. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that 49% of those living in poverty in the UK are either disabled people, or live in a household containing a disabled person. The Disability Benefits Consortium estimated that 2 million eligible claimants have missed out on support due to the decision to exclude legacy benefits claimants from the £20 uplift—a decision that now faces legal challenges. It also found that even if disabled people had received the £20 uplift that they were denied, it would still not be enough to meet the real needs of disabled people who rely on benefits.
Research by Scope says that life already costs those who are disabled £583 more a month on average, and that families of disabled children
“On average, face extra costs of £581 a month”.
It adds that
“For…24%...of families with disabled children, extra costs amount to over £1,000 a month.”
Disabled people have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and the covid restrictions, from rising food and energy prices to the emotional toll of shielding, but disabled people have been forgotten about in this Tory covid recovery plan.
Providing unpaid care is pushing thousands of families into poverty, and will have a lasting impact on their finances and quality of life. That was the case before covid-19, but the situation has now been exacerbated by the pandemic. Now such families face a cost of living crisis.
The Family Fund found that in 2021, 75% of families with disabled children reported that the overall support available to them had decreased since the beginning of the pandemic, and 76% reported that their overall financial situation had become worse as a result of the pandemic—and now the cost of living is increasing daily.
Carers UK has found that carers are using their own income or savings to cover the cost of care, equipment or products for the person they care for. On average, carers spend an estimated £1,370 a year on services or equipment for the person they care for. It also found that 35% of carers who provide 35 or more hours of care a week have been or are in debt. These are the words of a carer:
“I don’t have luxuries, can’t afford life insurance, car insurance or house insurance. At 60 I shouldn’t be using food banks and made to feel inadequate because I can’t afford petrol.”
Another carer has said:
“Crippled further by heating/electric going up even further to £177 a month. We have managed without heating in the past, I suspect we will again now”
Think about that—it is 2022. This situation is appalling.
What can be done about all this? The UK Government must introduce an emergency financial package to support the most vulnerable and to help families to cope with the Tory cost of living crisis. Here are some suggestions, based on what the SNP Scottish Government are doing, using their devolved powers to support disabled people—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran has said, they are doing so on their fixed budget.
The Scottish Government have extended child winter heating assistance to include young people aged 16 to 18. In total, they will support severely disabled children, and young people and their families, through a £202 payment to help with heating bills. This benefit is unique in the UK.
The Scottish Government’s child disability payment opened for new applications in November last year. It is the first of three complex disability benefits to be introduced nationwide by the Scottish Government; the adult disability payment will be introduced at the end of this year. This new payment replaces the UK Government’s disability living allowance for children and provides money to help with the extra care and mobility costs that children and young people with a disability may have. The Scottish Government will provide disabled people with a fundamentally different experience, based on dignity and respect. They will also ensure that individuals who face the greatest inequalities and risk of long-term unemployment are at the forefront of those benefiting from support.
What will this UK Tory Government do to help those most in need? Will they roll back the benefits cap, the two-child limit and the cut to universal credit of £20 per week—removed as the cost of living rises and never given to those on legacy benefits? Will they cut back on the rise in national insurance contributions from April, which will affect the lowest paid, but not those living off dividends and property rentals? Will they provide real help with energy costs and housing costs, which have been mentioned a lot in this debate? I should like to think that they will, but I doubt it.
As a bonny lass from Ayr, it would be remiss of me to let today go without a bit of Burns, so here is the “Selkirk Grace”:
“Some hae meat an canna eat,
And some wad eat that want it;
But we hae meat, and we can eat,
And sae the Lord be thankit.”
It was true in Burns’ day that there were haves and have-nots; it is a disgrace that this state of affairs still exists in the UK in 2022. People and organisations across Motherwell and Wishaw, and the whole UK, are fighting the effects of poverty day and daily. It is time for this UK Government to step up and do the same.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship in this important debate, Mrs Cummins, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on having secured it. It is a fairly obvious truth that there are things that really matter to our country, and the subject of today’s debate is one of them. There are also things that are embarrassing and we wish we did not have to talk about, and frankly the sorry state of Downing Street is one of those, so I am glad to be here in this debate, talking about something that really matters.
The cost of living crisis that we are facing is going to come to a crunch this year, but let us be honest: it has been a problem for the past decade. When a country has had slow or no growth for a decade, and when wages are held down while prices rise, that will cause a problem for the vast majority of families in that country. Those who are in the worst financial situations face the indignity of having a food bank parcel where their shopping should be, unlike every other normal family in this country. It is outrageous that 2.5 million of our fellow citizens, including half a million children, are in that position. That is not the product of events that have happened in the global markets in recent times; it is the product of 10 years of lost economic growth, and 10 years of lost progress on tackling poverty in this country. That is why we are here today.
Jim Shannon
As we look at the rise of referrals to food banks, it is important to note that a different category is increasing: those in the middle class are also squeezed now. We are finding that more and more people are under the cosh of prices. We all know how important the role of food banks is, but the Government have to recognise that this crisis is greater than it ever was before.
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and to a degree, I agree with him: any of us could end up needing to go to a food bank. This can happen to any of us, but important though food banks have become, I want a Government that seek to end the need for them. Is that too much to ask? Do we just have to accept food banks as a permanent feature of our country now, or might we one day have a Government that set out to end the need for them?
As much as I agree with some of the points made by colleagues from the SNP, I have to challenge them. How are they going to meet their own goal set in 2017 of child poverty reduction? It was made without qualification. We all want to see an end to child poverty and therefore it is important that that goal is met. I feel strongly that the Tories in Westminster made the wrong choice in getting rid of Labour’s national goal to end child poverty and wiping the Child Poverty Act 2010 from the statute book. It is equally important that those who have made commitments to the people of Scotland stick to them.
Marion Fellows
The way the Scottish Government will do this is through independence and the control of our own economic levers—it is as simple as that. We make commitments and we hope to be able to achieve them, because then we can do things the way they should be done and in the way that is best for people in Scotland.
Alison McGovern
I look forward to hearing how that is going to work. I think the way to tackle poverty everywhere in the United Kingdom is through co-operation and the use of the redistributive force of the United Kingdom Treasury. Members rightly mention the bad impact of the botched Brexit deal on our country’s economic fortunes. I would hate to see any part of our country go through the same thing with the loss of access to the United Kingdom single market, so I look forward to hearing more in future debates about how that will work.
I turn to the UK Government and the issue of inflation. Members have mentioned that the headline inflation rate in no way represents the specific forces of inflation that are faced by those with the least. I think people who suffer poverty must be some of the finest economists in the country, because they are able to monitor prices and make every penny they have stretch further when they need to. The Government should take some responsibility here. What has the Minister asked of the Office for National Statistics, in respect of its measuring and reporting, so that we can know exactly what situation is faced by the people who have the least in this country?
I point the Minister to the comments of the chief executive of Iceland, who says that he is losing customers not to his competitors but to food banks. That should tell the Minister that we really do have a problem with prices in this country that cannot simply be understood from the headline rate of inflation.
Secondly, on work, does the Minister accept that whatever the intention of a jobs plan that set aside £9 billion for a job retention grant that was then cancelled; whatever the intention of a jobs plan that had a kickstart programme that was supposed to get jobs for 250,000 of our young people but failed to do so; and whatever the intention of a jobs plan that was supposed to bring older people back to the workforce, given the level of vacancies in our country now, that jobs plan was a failure?
Does he further accept that when it comes to people’s wages—the other side of the cost of living crisis—a crucial part of the problem is that people have too little choice about the job they do? The OBR says that one in five people is working below their skill level. They could get a better job, but they have not. The Government have much more to do to improve people’s prospects at work. I would bet the Minister agrees that the best route out of poverty is work. Why do we have a Tory Government that are failing to get people jobs that can pay for their bills and shopping? It is an outrageous situation.
Finally, I turn to some of the other ways in which people need help. If we think about people’s ability to earn more, some of the things that are holding them back are those facts about our economy that we have known about for far too long. The childcare system in this country is expensive and complicated. What steps has the Minister taken to simplify it? People trying to make ends meet on a lone parent’s income, for example, are limited by the cost of childcare and whether it is available at all. I think again of the one in five people who work below their skill level. A lot of them have caring responsibilities for children or older relatives and cannot work longer hours in their jobs because they do not have care support. What conversations has the Minister had about solving that?
I also want to mention the simple fact that in too many parts of our country it is hard to get around on public transport. The price of buses has gone through the roof in recent years, and in some parts of the country people cannot travel to a job because there is no public transport. Yes, the price of motoring has gone up, but it is hard to get a better job if someone relies on public transport in areas that have too little.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the fact that too few people are members of trade unions in this country, and that limits their ability to bargain for better wages.
The Labour party has put forward some simple, compelling and obvious ways in which the Government could take steps today to tackle the cost of living crisis. Whether it is cutting VAT on fuel or extending the warm home grant through a windfall tax on oil and gas, we know there are steps that we can take now. However, I want to hear from the Minister about the bigger structural changes that we need to fundamentally shift our economy so that every family in this country can truly make ends meet.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Cummins, and to see your wonderful smiling face. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing the debate. It has been a lively one on important issues, but it was brightened up by the wonderful tie of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas).
The Government are taking the present challenges of those on low incomes very seriously. The pandemic has been challenging for many people. We acted quickly to put in place unprecedented levels of support during this period, as has been highlighted by some Members today. After yesterday’s debate, it feels a little like groundhog day discussing these issues today, but they are important. As was highlighted yesterday, given the current cost-of-living challenges, we in the Government are actively working on the best way to build on the existing support that is available. I hope that will reassure the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who raised points on this, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives.
Since the pandemic started, we have spent more than £400 billion on protecting people’s jobs and livelihoods and supporting businesses and public services. There has been unprecedented welfare support. Universal credit has stood up to the challenge of covid-19, providing a vital safety net for 6 million people. We must thank the hard-working staff at the Department for Work and Pensions, including the thousands of work coaches across all our constituencies, who worked tirelessly to ensure that the benefits system did its job. Many of them are the pandemic’s unsung heroes. I hope that we make an extra effort to thank them when we perform our constituency duties over the weeks ahead, if we have not done so already.
Alison McGovern
I just want to add that whatever the policy disagreements between our parties, I agree wholeheartedly that those who work for the DWP, particularly on the frontline, deserve all our thanks.
David Rutley
I am grateful for that comment. The hon. Lady did not have to say that; I know her well enough to know that she feels that way. We have differences over policy, but we know we have very dedicated public servants in the UK and Scottish Governments who are committed to addressing the issues, and we are grateful for their work.
It is also important to highlight the fact that our successful vaccine programme is providing us with the protection to fight the virus in all its forms. Although we need to remain cautious, the latest labour market statistics show that time and again we have made positive decisions during the pandemic. As we have shown throughout the pandemic, the Government will do what it takes to support people who are struggling financially. Supporting vulnerable people in our society is of paramount importance to me, our Secretary of State and the Government.
The proportion of Government spending that goes on welfare reflects a strong commitment to the poorest in society. This year, we will invest more than £250 billion through the welfare system, including £110 billion on people of working age. That rightly provides an important safety net. We also take notice of the clear evidence that work, particularly where it is full time, plays an essential role in reducing the risk of poverty. With our economic recovery continuing, it is right to focus our attention on getting people back into work.
The latest job figures tell a positive story. A record number of people are now in payroll employment in the UK, with 23,000 people added to the payroll in Scotland in December alone. The UK has a buoyant labour market, with 1.25 million vacancies. That figure is has increased by 33,000, or 2.7%, on the month, and by 462,000, or 58.9%, since the start of the pandemic, offering people opportunities to secure a job, progress in work and increase their earnings. Current estimates show that the number of online job adverts in Scotland alone has risen by 13.3% since the start of the pandemic. To help people take advantage of those vacancies, our extended multibillion-pound plan for jobs will help people across the UK find work and boost their wages and prospects.
The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) will probably shake her head at this point, but we are making real progress. We have opened 150 temporary job centres; I had the honour of opening the most recent one in Macclesfield last Friday. We have recruited 13,500 work coaches. They make a difference because they care about individuals, often meeting them face-to-face—increasingly so as we come out of the pandemic. There are 1,200 extra work coaches in Scotland, helping with this vital task.
We are also investing in our young people through the kickstart scheme: 112,000 young people have started a life-changing six-month work placement, and 10,000 of those starts were in Scotland.
Alison McGovern
It was supposed to be 250,000 by now. Given what the Minister just said, what accounts for the gap?
David Rutley
There are more vacancies available, and we are encouraging people to take them up across the country, in Scotland as well. The scheme has seen real success in turning people’s lives around. There are further opportunities in the months ahead for people to get involved with that important programme.
It does not stop there, because we want to ensure that we help address some of the gaps in the workforce that were highlighted yesterday: in hospitality, health and social care, and technology. Sector-based work academies help people to get new skills and a guaranteed job interview at the end of their placement.
I also recognise, along with many others here, the immense value that older workers bring to the workforce. That is why the DWP is providing specific funding for that cohort. There is funding available for the over-50s to get tailored Jobcentre Plus support, to help them find work and build on skills to get into the workforce.
In addition, to support those jobseekers who are out of work for 12 months or more, our Restart scheme provides intensive support to help claimants in England and Wales find jobs in their local area, which I am sure will be welcomed across the Chamber today. Through regular contact with all participants, providers will develop a strong understanding of the individual’s employment history, skills, aspirations and support needs to help each one succeed. That will break down the employment barriers holding claimants back from finding work.
I remind hon. Members that the DWP is focused on helping people to increase their income by progressing in work. We often talk about the importance of getting people into work, but we are equally committed to helping people progress in work and move ahead with their career aspirations. We will shortly respond to Baroness McGregor-Smith’s report on in-work progression and set out our approach. I hope that will be welcomed by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who was concerned about that issue.
Universal credit incentivises work as part of its design. With that in mind, we have gone further to make work pay, as has been referred to, by cutting universal credit taper rates from 63% to 55%, and increasing universal credit work allowances by £500 a year. That is essentially a tax cut for the lowest paid in society, worth around £2.2 billion in 2022-23. That means that 1.9 million households will keep, on average, around an extra £1,000 a year. In addition, from April 2022, we will boost the national living wage by 6.6% to £9.50, which is ahead of inflation and worth another £1,000 each year to workers on the lowest pay.
Jim Shannon
A number of Members have asked for confirmation that the national insurance contributions planned for April will be deferred, adjusted or done away with. I know the Minister cannot answer that question, because it is not his responsibility, but can he take it to the Chancellor for his consideration? That would be an excellent step in the right direction to help those who are under financial pressure.
David Rutley
The hon. Gentleman makes his point with characteristic commitment and compassion. We on the Treasury Bench note that and will make sure that it gets through. The particular levy he talks about is to tackle the impact of the pandemic on the NHS and to face a challenge that has not been faced adequately across many decades—to tackle social care—but the points he makes have been noted.
Coming back to the national living wage, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) made some points about how we can move forward. Let me reassure her that the Low Pay Commission forecasts that the national living wage will reach £10 next year. That is consistent with the target for the national living wage to reach two thirds of median earnings by 2024. We will not stop at the 6.6% increase.
Patricia Gibson
I note the interesting comments from the Minister about the national living wage and the planned increases, which I am sure will be welcome, so far as they go. Do his Government have any plans to deal with the age discrimination that is baked into the national living wage, which is not really a living wage?
David Rutley
I know where the hon. Lady is coming from. The issue is that younger people typically and often do not face the same cost challenges as other older people, because they are able to share accommodation costs with others. I do not regard it as discrimination, but I acknowledge the different costs that people face.
Further support for working parents has been put in place, doubling free childcare for working parents to 30 hours and increasing the value of healthy start vouchers by over a third, to boost the long-term health of young children. We are investing over £200 million a year from this year to continue the holiday activities and food programme, which provides enriching activities and healthy meals to children in all English local authorities.
I have noted discussion, not just today but yesterday, on concerns about the cost of living. We recognise that those exist, particularly in the case of energy costs. However, let me remind hon. Members of the measures we have in place to combat the adverse effects of the increase in worldwide oil and gas prices, which is a reaction to demand surging after the pandemic and the effect that has had on the global economy and our own economy. The energy price cap will remain in place at least until the end of 2022, to protect millions of customers and ensure they pay a fair price for their energy. Despite the rising costs for said energy, Ofgem has confirmed that the cap will stay at the current level this winter.
Secondly, winter fuel payments will be made to over 11 million pensioners this winter, ensuring that older people have the security and dignity they deserve. Households with someone of state pension age will receive £200, and households with someone over 80 will receive £300. Thirdly, cold weather payments help vulnerable people in receipt of certain income-related benefits to meet the additional costs of heating during periods of unseasonably severe cold weather. That includes older people receiving pension credit and those receiving an income-based benefit with a disability component or where the household includes a child under five. In 2020-21, just over 4 million payments were made, at a cost of just over £100 million.
Finally, this Government are supporting 2.2 million low-income households by issuing a £140 rebate on their energy bills through the warm home discount, which is worth £354 million. From this year, proposed changes will increase the scheme by £121 million, to be worth £475 million a year, with nearly 3 million households receiving a £150 rebate. As I said at the start, we are working across Government—I reiterated this yesterday, as did my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—to determine the appropriate response to assist vulnerable people facing rising energy costs. We recognise that people will be facing unexpected challenges with essential household costs. That is why in October we introduced a £500 million support fund to assist vulnerable households across the country this winter. The £421 million household support fund in England has enabled local authorities to provide targeted support to households in need of help with the cost of food, utilities and wider essentials; and the devolved Administrations received a total of almost £80 million through the Barnett formula, with Scotland receiving £41 million of that. I am pleased to see that they have all used the money to help households this winter.
Beyond this package of support, some people are struggling with debt pressures. The Government work closely with the Money and Pensions Service, and the wider free-to-client debt advice sector, to provide access to high-quality debt advice. The service remains the biggest funder of free debt advice in England. The DWP also uses appropriate touchpoints to ensure that those in receipt of benefits are signposted quickly and directly to expert financial help. To help those people, the debt respite scheme, also known as Breathing Space, came into effect in England and Wales on 4 May 2021. That gives someone in problem debt the right to legal protections from creditor action.
It is important to place the cost of living challenges in context. Prices are rising in countries around the world. As the global economy recovers from the pandemic, consumer demand is surging at the same time as global supply chains are being disrupted. We recognise and understand the pressures that this is exerting on people’s wallets, and their worries as they see the cost of food, energy and other essentials increase. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—indeed, all of us in government—are listening to those concerns and watching what is happening in the markets. As has been shown during the pandemic, this Government will do what it takes to support those most in need. I can assure hon. Members that we are continuing to actively work across Government to build on the existing support, already available, and to determine the appropriate response to assist vulnerable people facing rising energy costs.
Mick Whitley
Could the Minister tell me how it is that 27 energy firms have gone bankrupt? There is something wrong. Could he explain to the Chamber why?
David Rutley
The hon. Gentleman got in quickly there; I was about to end my remarks. This is a complex challenge. We know that there has been a real surge, and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working actively to address these challenges. As I have said here, we are not concerned only about what has happened at the customer-facing end of the supply chain and the challenges that that has given to customers. The issue is the rising prices as well, and that is what we are focusing on.
Patricia Gibson
I did not expect a dramatic policy announcement from the Minister today, but I was hoping, and I think we were all hoping, for a change of tone to signify that more would be done. I was hoping that, even if the Minister could not be specific, he would make a commitment that more would be done; that this Government would look more carefully at what could be done for those at the sharp end of the cost of living crisis. We in Scotland understand that, to truly tackle the cost of living crisis, we need all the powers over tax and welfare. That is what is needed to properly address those challenges in order to build a fairer and more just society. For Scotland, it is clear from the Minister’s answer and from yesterday that we must take our future into our own hands and build the just, fairer and more equal society that people in Scotland actually want.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the cost of living in the UK.
Tourette’s syndrome
(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
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate. This is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I will call Conor McGinn to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the treatment and study of Tourette’s syndrome.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Cummins. I am delighted to have secured this debate on Tourette’s syndrome and how a lack of provision for research, diagnosis and treatment is impacting on individuals and families across the United Kingdom.
First, it is worth explaining what Tourette’s syndrome is. In short, it is an inherited neurological condition that causes involuntary and uncontrollable motor and vocal tics. Tics usually start in childhood, around the age of six or seven, and can fluctuate in severity and frequency, potentially occurring in nearly any part of the body and in any muscle. This can be painful, as one might imagine, and of course very debilitating, even disabling. Tourette’s is not often experienced in isolation. Up to 85% of those with Tourette’s syndrome will also experience co-occurring conditions and features, which might include attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD, or obsessive compulsive disorder, OCD, and indeed anxiety. These can be equally challenging, if not in some cases more challenging to manage than tics.
By far the biggest misconception about Tourette’s is that it is a condition that simply makes people swear or say socially inappropriate things. Involuntary swearing is a symptom of Tourette’s syndrome, but it affects only a minority. Ninety per cent. of people with Tourette’s do not have this symptom. However, having secured this debate, in my experience it is the single factor that those I have spoken to—colleagues in this place and others—commonly think of as the defining characteristic of Tourette’s. That goes to the heart of the challenge that we have in addressing some of the misconceptions about this condition.
Despite Tourette’s syndrome affecting the quality of life of over 300,000 people here in the UK—including, figures indicate, approximately one school-age child in every 100, most of whom are undiagnosed—this is a condition that, although relatively prevalent, remains widely misunderstood. Indeed, it is often deeply stigmatised and mocked throughout society. The stigma cannot be overstated, and the impact of it is very real. A recent study published in the Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities in 2021 outlined just how many participants faced discrimination in numerous aspects of life: 75% in education, 71% in their social lives, 61% on public transport and 54% in employment. A 2017 study concluded that people with Tourette’s are over four times more likely than the general population to take their own lives.
The reason I applied for and am leading today’s debate is to support my constituent Emma McNally, a St Helens mum who first wrote to me in July 2020. Her son was diagnosed with Tourette’s syndrome aged nine and could access regular appointments under the care of an excellent neurologist at Liverpool’s Alder Hey Hospital, which I know is familiar to the Minister. The retirement of the specialist in March 2020 left a gaping hole in provision locally and Emma’s son was discharged, with no one able to take him on. Unacceptably, to this day he has been left without the care he needs.
Emma’s journey—from local St Helens mum, living in Parr in my constituency, who contacted her local MP—to national campaigner and now the chief executive of the national charity for Tourette’s has done a great deal to highlight and raise awareness of this condition. Her e-petition on Tourette’s, submitted through the mechanism we have in this House, secured 71,000 signatures, which reflects the clear strength of feeling across the country for better care and services. She is fighting tenaciously on behalf of families around the country. Although her petition sadly fell just short of the threshold required for automatic discussion in this House, I am glad that we are having today’s debate, which goes some way to doing justice to her brilliant work and the importance of this issue. I have been contacted by more than 30 colleagues from all parties across the House, from all parts of the United Kingdom, who have expressed their support. I want especially to mention the Minister’s colleague and the erstwhile Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Department of Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), who has worked with me over the last year on this issue. He is prohibited from actively participating in this debate because he is now in the Government Whips Office.
The debate is long overdue. The last time the House met to debate Tourette’s syndrome was in 2010. Back then, the charity Tourettes Action held a list of 44 consultants in the UK with a special interest in Tourette’s syndrome. Now, there are only 17 who provide care in the NHS and will see children, and there are none in the north-west. I am sad to say that the picture for those living with this condition and their families has got worse over the last decade, and it should be getting better. We need to change this.
Families tell me that there is a significant and urgent need for specialist services and clinicians to bolster early diagnosis and rapid treatment. Early intervention in Tourette’s cases could reduce the more pernicious, longer-term strains on an individual’s mental and physical health and wellbeing, as well as on that of their friends, families, colleagues and teachers, by giving them a clear diagnosis and an idea of who to turn to.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. On the issue that he has explained—the much-misunderstood aspects of Tourette’s—would he agree with me that we need not only more finance and more professionals involved in treatment but a greater degree of research into the development of Tourette’s, to assure present and future generations that it can be seriously tackled?
Conor McGinn
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support and his intervention. I will come to research; it is an absolutely critical part of a holistic approach that understands more about the condition, intervenes early and provides ongoing care. I thank him for his support for his constituents affected by Tourette’s.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is unacceptable that Emma McNally’s son has to travel to London from St Helens to have treatment for this condition. That is something that we need to change. Although there are specialist centres for Tourette’s, the problem for families is that many centres accept only local referrals, or those from local child and adolescent mental health services. If there is no Tourette’s specialist at a local CAMHS, or indeed in the clinical commissioning group area—and the CCG considers this outside its remit—the result is that care is inevitably denied. That produces a Catch-22 situation: care is not available locally at CCG level or further afield regionally—and only sparingly nationally.
Families want clearer referral pathways to help those with Tourette’s, as well as clearer referral guidelines for professionals. Despite their best efforts, many GPs simply do not know where to refer children or adults with tic disorders. Currently, many patients are experiencing long waiting times and the ping-pong of being referred back and forth from one service to another, which, as well as being incredibly frustrating for patients, wastes the time and resources of our professionals in the NHS.
Even clinicians in CAMHS and paediatrics lack clarity on how to treat tics. That needs fundamental improvement. A clearer process, with clearer guidelines, along with more professionals with a specialist interest in treating Tourette’s, would also go some way to reducing the number of patients who are diagnosed and discharged at the same appointment. For them, follow-up care is not a possibility. They then find themselves trapped in a spiral of referral and rejection.
As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) has already alluded to, research is key for clinical and public understanding. The Government’s response to Emma McNally’s petition said:
“Funding has been committed to support research into Tourette’s syndrome.”
Research investment into this condition through the National Institute for Health Research plummeted by almost 50% between 2019-20 and 2020-21, from just under £670,000 to just over £362,000. I repeat:
“Funding has been committed to support research into Tourette’s syndrome.”
The Government also referenced a renewed focus on expanding Health Education England’s clinical psychology training intake to help adopt and develop services and respond to patients’ needs. When I asked Ministers what proportion of the wider clinical psychology intake had taken a specialist or, indeed, any interest in a Tourette’s placement, the Department said it did not possess that information. That will not provide much assurance to families listening today. I know the Minister is sympathetic, which is why I have deliberately made this debate about the issue and the policy, because it is one that we can work on together. Will she provide some clarity on that now, or if that is not possible today, can she take it away and write to me?
It is a question of fairness. Tourette’s has similar levels of prevalence in our society as autism and epilepsy, but where diagnosis and support, along with public awareness, for those conditions has improved in recent years, understanding and support for Tourette’s remains much more limited. Indeed, it is hard to imagine where many individuals and families would be without the fantastic work of charity and support groups in this area, such as Tourettes Action, The Brain Charity, the ADHD Foundation and others who do so much to support people.
In conclusion, I hope today’s debate will play a role in raising awareness of Tourette’s syndrome and the wider struggle that so many families across the country face in getting the support and treatment to which they should be entitled. The Minister has heard what I have had to say. Will she meet Emma and some of the other families to hear directly from them, if the opportunity arises? I know her intentions are good and I am sure that she will pledge to do her bit to work with me and others in this House who take an interest in this, as well as with the people who are directly affected. That way, we can try to transform the experience of those living with Tourette’s syndrome so they can get the support they need to live the happy and fulfilled lives that they very much deserve.
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I thank the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) for securing the debate on this important issue. I have been listening and have heard his impassioned case for better support for children and young people with Tourette’s syndrome. In particular, I was touched by the story of one of his constituents, Emma McNally, and the difficulties that she and her son face in accessing the care and support that he needs. I want to extend my personal thanks to Emma, whose tireless campaigning, along with that of other parents of children with Tourette’s, has helped emphasise the importance of children with Tourette’s getting the help they need and the difficulties that they are facing getting that help, particularly in the north-west of England.
I know that for many patients and families, Tourette’s can be an extremely debilitating condition to live with. I regularly receive correspondence on this issue. I was particularly moved by the case of Jay Mangan from Sefton Central and his two children, Rebecca and Jack, both of whom have Tourette’s. Having watched the video that Mr Mangan shared, I was struck by the severity of the tic episodes that both Rebecca and Jack routinely suffer. As the hon. Member for St Helens North flagged in his speech, Tourette’s syndrome can be misunderstood. There is not much awareness of it, so videos such as Mr Mangan’s are helpful.
It is also important that Mr Mangan and families such as his get the support that they need. We know that with the right care and support, someone living with Tourette’s syndrome can lead a fulfilling life, which is why the Government are determined to ensure that all those with the condition have access to the appropriate services.
The majority of services are commissioned by clinical commissioning groups, which are best placed to understand the needs of their local area. Services are commissioned through local community paediatric services or child and adolescent mental health services. Such services will be appropriate for the majority of children and young people with Tourette’s syndrome, and the teams involved will refer them to multidisciplinary teams, including clinical psychologists where necessary, to help with the management of their conditions.
Clinicians are supported in that work through the BMJ Best Practice guidance on Tourette’s, which covers both diagnosis and management. For children who require more specialist support, there are currently three recognised specialist centres in the UK—one in Sheffield, and two in London. These centres have internationally recognised expertise in the assessment and management of Tourette’s syndrome.
Following the retirement of a consultant at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital who had developed a special interest in Tourette’s, I understand that the current level of support available in the area is different—we heard how that impacted on Emma’s son. Local CCGs have acknowledged the impact on families and are considering options to address the matter. We understand that Alder Hey Children’s Hospital has developed a proposal for a local tertiary service for Tourette’s, which is currently under review. Discussions with the nine Cheshire and Merseyside CCGs are being led by the NHS Liverpool CCG, with a meeting planned for later this month in order to scrutinise the proposed clinical model. I have asked to be personally apprised of the situation, and I want to take this opportunity to extend an invitation to the hon. Member for St Helens North to meet me and discuss the local situation further. Of course, I would also be very happy to meet the families and learn as much as I can from lived experience.
To support patients across the country, it is vital that we have sufficient numbers of trained healthcare professionals, as the hon. Gentleman said. There were more doctors and consultants working in the specialism of neurology in NHS trusts and CCGs in September 2021 than there were 12 months earlier. Furthermore, Health Education England has supported a 60% expansion in the clinical psychology training intake over the past two years, which is expected to achieve a growth of 2,520 additional psychologists in the NHS workforce by 2025. Clinical psychologists are well placed to develop new services and undertake further bespoke development to respond to the needs of patients with Tourette’s syndrome.
To support the provision of services that can help children and young people with Tourette’s, we are increasing funding to child and adolescent mental health services. In March 2021, we announced an additional £79 million of funding, which will be used to significantly expand children’s mental health services. That will allow around 22,500 more children and young people to access community health services, and it will provide a faster increase in the coverage of mental health support teams in schools and colleges. The Department for Education has also announced more than £17 million to improve mental health and wellbeing in schools and colleges, including new funding to train thousands of senior mental health leads.
However, we acknowledge that support must be provided to unpaid carers of children and young people with Tourette’s, whose lives are significantly impacted on by the responsibility of providing around-the-clock care and support. We will invest up to £25 million to work with the sector to kick-start a change in the services provided, to support unpaid carers. We know what vital role they play and the sacrifices that they make for their families. We expect that the funding will identify and test a range of new and existing interventions, which could include respite breaks and peer group and wellbeing support.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) mentioned research, which is very important. As we look forward, we recognise the value of funding and supporting research into Tourette’s. We are currently funding a number of studies, including a study on deep brain stimulation in people with Tourette’s and a digital behavioural intervention for tics in children and adolescents.
The hon. Member for St Helens North mentioned the variability in funding: some £2.1 million was spent on Tourette’s research between 2018 and 2020, but that figure depends on applications to the fund, which are not always linear. However, we very much welcome applications to that fund in order to understand Tourette’s and its underlying conditions, in addition to those studies that we are undertaking.
I close by once again thanking the hon. Member for St Helens North for securing this important debate. It is important in raising awareness, and it is important to families in the north-west, in the Merseyside area—an area that I am familiar with, as the hon. Gentleman said, because it is where I am from. It is important that families get the support they need, because the condition is difficult for some families to overcome. I thank those parents and families as well for all their work on raising the profile of this condition and the understanding that, with the right care and support, people can go on to live fulfilling and happy lives. I look forward to meeting with the hon. Gentleman and some of the campaigners to discuss this issue further, and to focus on securing the support that many families in the north-west need.
Question put and agreed to.
Early Years Educators
(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
James Gray (in the Chair)
Before we start this afternoon’s proceedings, I remind Members that Mr Speaker enjoins us to wear our masks when we are not speaking, to maintain social distancing and to do all of those things that I know Members want to do anyhow.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of early years educators.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gray. Looking around me, I also see many friends and supporters of our early years sector. I thank them for taking time out of their schedules to come to debate this issue; I know that there are a lot of important competing issues in Parliament today.
I start with two declarations of interest. First, I am married to a hard-working early years educator, who will be arriving home very shortly to pick up the school run and then juggle all the different things that working mums do while working dads are in Parliament—or vice versa. Secondly, for the last couple of years it has been my pleasure to chair the all-party parliamentary group on childcare and early education; we held our annual general meeting in the last hour, actually. I want to extend my thanks to parliamentary colleagues who have supported our work over the last year and have committed to do so for the year ahead. I was somehow re-elected chairman of the group for the next year. I also thank many colleagues old and new who have agreed to serve as officers for the coming year: we have much to do.
This afternoon’s debate is timely. It rather wonderfully coincides with the all-party group’s annual childcare and early education week, which celebrates and promotes the hard work of our early years educators and sector. Our theme for this year is celebrating the role of the early years workforce as educators, which is what I wanted to place at the heart of my chairmanship of the group, and seeking to explore the challenges that the workforce faces and celebrate the good work that it does.
Last week, the all-party group held a forum for parents to share their experiences of early years educators and settings. It was chaired by the brilliant Professor Kathy Sylva of Oxford University. Professor Sylva is at this very moment providing an update to the meeting of our all-party group, which is being chaired in my absence by the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). The session is being recorded, and I urge any colleagues who would like to catch up on it to follow our social media channels. Parents provided some incredible examples. I see this as an example of the very best work that we can do in Westminster, and I am sure that Professor Sylva will not mind me touching on some of the things that were said. One parent spoke about the empathy, patience and humour an early years educator shows when working with both her and her child, who has significant special educational needs. Another reminded us of the little freedoms that early years settings empower families to have. One lady said she occasionally has lunch with her partner; that may sound frivolous, but one the best things that we can do for our children is provide them with a loving, secure home environment—and making sure that mum and dad stay mum and dad is rather important, too. One phrase that touched me was from a parent discussing the key worker in their child’s early years setting, who said:
“Simply, we would be lost without these people. They are truly amazing.”
Of course, there are areas for development in the early years workforce as we strive for its continued betterment. At our forum, parents raised the issues of settings’ opening hours and, overwhelmingly, the need to ensure that early years educators are properly paid, a subject to which I will return.
I commend the Government for acting on this issue in the spending review. Following a meeting that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) and I had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), he placed early years at the centre of some of his announcements in this area in the Budget. He quadrupled the funding for early years settings over the next three years. That was most welcome, and an important step towards shoring up a sector that has been heavily hit, it is fair to say, during the pandemic.
However, as I have said before, this is not just about money. The early years sector faces an existential crisis as settings are being forced to close, and the valued early years educators that we are talking about are then lost to other lines of work, often due to remuneration. Most worryingly of all, bright young prospects are put off a career as an early years educator. At a meeting of our all-party group in December, two apprentices spoke compellingly about their work with children under five. However, those brilliant talents were pursuing careers in social care and not in early years. Social care is an important vocation, but they are a great loss to the potential early years workforce of tomorrow, and we need them. So more must be done to draw the early years educators of tomorrow towards the profession, and not push them away.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Steve Brine
I will give way to my predecessor as chair of the all-party group.
Tulip Siddiq
I know the hon. Member is a doughty champion for the early years sector. I have heard him mention his wife on several occasions and admire the work that she does. In an ideal world I would stay and make a speech in this debate, but I have to leave because I have moved to the shadow Treasury team and I have a commitment.
I wanted to come and pay tribute to the early years educators, and I am pleased the hon. Member still uses the term “educators”, because they are educators. They are not just key workers. They are the unsung heroes of our nation who make a massive difference to our children’s life chances. I do not think he mentioned how much they are paid, but on average, as he knows, it is only £7.42 an hour, which is dismal compared with how much it costs to live.
I wonder whether the hon. Member will comment on the fact that we need a cultural change in how we value and talk about early years practitioners and educators. Instead of just referring to the early years sector as childcare, we should also refer to early years educators and talk about early education. I could go on about this for ever.
Steve Brine
It is funny how often, in my almost 12 years in this House, people say, “That is amazing; I was just about to come on to that in my speech”, and funnily enough, I was. The hon. Lady led on this subject when she led the all-party group, and she is absolutely right. Far too often we have seen early years practitioners presented as well-meaning amateurs who are good at changing and plasticine. They are good at those, but they are also educators, so she is absolutely right. Following on from what she said, I think a major contributing factor to the fact that we are losing people from the profession and not attracting them into it is that early years educators have been subject to so many misconceptions about their role that it has affected how their profession is viewed and then how it can attract people.
First and most commonly is the notion that early years educators somehow do not hold the same status as those who work in the subsequent parts of the education profession. That could not be further from the truth. The first few years of early education is the foundation on which lifelong learning, health and wellbeing are built. Handling this phase of a child’s life requires specialist knowledge and specialist approaches from trained, qualified practitioners. Early years educators are highly trained professionals and they hold specialist qualifications accordingly. Despite that, many settings are struggling to pay competitive salaries, and providers have therefore reported that staff are increasingly moving into sectors such as retail.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I apologise because I cannot stay for the full debate, either. On the point about pay, is it not linked to the fact that so many providers simply cannot cover the cost of their staff and their settings with the amount that they get from the Government for the so-called free hours of childcare—the 15 hours that is universal for three and four-year-olds and the 15 hours additional? We could have a whole debate on whether somebody like me should be entitled to those hours, which is a separate point, but I speak from experience as the mother of a three-year-old who gets only 27 hours of childcare a week, yet I still pay half of what I paid before he turned three. The providers simply cannot make ends meet, and that is why they cannot pay the staff properly and cannot train them well enough.
Steve Brine
The hon. Lady is right. The early years settings that we hear from in the group report that funding for the hours offered under the flagship 30-hours entitlement, which of course I support, has not kept pace with the rise in minimum wage and all the other costs, so the gap between the cost of providing each hour versus what comes in has narrowed and narrowed, and the lines have crossed. That is why we are seeing a squeeze and settings closing. I thank her for that point.
Competitive pay is the least that any qualified professional should expect. I hope the funding announcement in the spending review, as I mentioned, will help to address that. However, the pandemic has added stress for everyone. It has added to the stress of skilled staff, including with the increased risk of exposure to infection that our early years professionals face. A loss of skilled staff means that the early years sector cannot deliver high-quality early education, which will especially affect the most deprived areas and the most disadvantaged children. I want to stress that point to the Minister; I know that he is acutely aware of it, and I hope he can address it in his closing remarks.
The early years workforce needs a step change in wages. The Government have gone far, but they need to go further. The Minister has my full support to take up our cause inside Government; we will back him all the way. Being a former junior Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care, I know that Under-Secretaries of State do not always have the swing vote on decisions in Her Majesty’s Treasury, which is why the Minister will need all the ballast we can provide. I think that I speak for all of us present in saying that we are there to provide it.
Urgency in addressing this area is underlined by my next point. Most early years places are delivered through private, voluntary or independent childcare settings. Maintained nurseries, such as Lanterns Nursery School in my constituency, play a vital role as well, but PVI providers deliver more than 80% of childcare places. PVI providers have a consistently good reputation across the board; like their maintained counterparts, PVI settings are overseen by Ofsted, which is good. In 2020, Ofsted ranked 96% of PVI providers as good or outstanding—up from 72% in 2012.
Most PVI providers—about 57%—have only one site. Only 9% of PVI providers are what we would call a chain, with 20 or more sites. Most of those settings are hard-working small businesses that employ people exclusively from the local community. They invest any surplus they have into upgrading the nursery environment and, crucially, developing their most important asset—their staff. We are not talking about people lining their pockets with those ever-dwindling surpluses. They are simply seeking to make a fair living while pursuing the brilliant vocation of shaping young lives, which brings me to my next point.
Earlier, hon. Members heard the story of how one parent and their child benefited from the support and inspiration offered by their early years educator, which is a tale that is replicated time and again across the country; I suspect other hon. Members will refer to it. Early years educators provide support, advice and guidance to parents, caregivers and families, including on nutrition, play, schooling and health. They are educators in the widest possible sense of the word. They often form great teams with parents and provide families with valuable insights into their child’s development. We know children form multiple attachments at an early stage, and one of those can be with those working with them in a nursery setting.
Crucially, as policymakers, we all understand the importance of early intervention in making a difference to life chances. For every £1 invested in early education, about £7 would be required to have the same impact in adolescence. Every £1 spent in early years saves about £13 in later interventions.
One parent and NHS worker captured it best when they said that, while
“nurses, doctors and other healthcare staff got most of the accolades,”
and rightly so, early years settings and their workers
“selflessly continued to open to look after keyworker children such as ours, even though it potentially put them at risk so we could continue to work.”
At the end of last year, there were press reports of adjusting staffing ratios in early years settings as part of an aim to lower the cost for parents, which I would gently caution the Minister against. Safe, secure and necessary monitoring in early years settings requires a higher staffing ratio than in schools. Leading voices from across the early years sector, including the Early Years Alliance and the National Day Nurseries Association, have warned against it.
I believe that early years professionals deserve pension contributions and pay increases that can keep in line with increases in the cost of living—a very hot political subject at the moment—which must be delivered through more investment and better recognition of the work of the early years workforce. We are in a position where the Government require early years settings to be open in order to deliver the 30-hour funding entitlement, but, as I have said, there is a shortfall in funding, and that situation can only go on for so long. The result of that shortfall is that many early years settings run at a loss and even face closure, especially those in disadvantaged areas. As a Conservative, I of course want small businesses—I mentioned how many of these early years providers are small businesses—to thrive: indeed, I believe that all Members in the House, from all parties, would want that. As a parent, I want all children to have access to the very best early education, wherever they live.
In the case of PVI early years settings, those two things are not mutually exclusive. Those who pursue a career in early years education do so because, above all else, they believe passionately in making a difference in children’s lives, and that is because early years education is vital in tackling inequalities. We know that the first five years of a child’s life are the most formative. However, when providers in the most deprived areas report themselves as being twice as likely to close as those in more affluent areas, we must acknowledge that something is going seriously wrong in the sector.
The Early Years Alliance has said that poorer families are more likely to lose access to early years settings because of what I have described as a market failure. I am sure that colleagues will speak about other experiences from their own area, but it is important to set the context. If we are to deliver on our promises and level up all parts of the country that have been left behind, the early years workforce is a vital tool in that project.
So what can we do? We can begin squaring the circle here today by supporting the APPG and our call for the early years workforce to take their rightful place as educators. I encourage colleagues to take advantage of the relaxation of covid restrictions to meet local early education providers in their area; I am sure that everybody who is participating in this debate already does so. We can all show our support for the work of those providers by thanking them during this debate.
However, it is to the Minister I look. I have sat in his seat many times. He is most welcome to his post, which I know he is still relatively new in, and I hope that he can find time to come and speak to us on the APPG in short time. We know that there is a lot in his in-tray, but we also know that he is a parent and no doubt a lot of what I have said today will resonate with him.
Before coming to my conclusion, I just need to qualify one point that I made earlier when I said that this issue is not all about money. I meant that, but so many of the challenges facing early years educators can be addressed by more targeted investment. We must address the workforce challenge that our early years sector faces. In my opinion, that can only be done by paying our early years educators the same amount as those working with the reception year group. The present system is inequitable and unfair. That change would be transformative for our valued early years workers. It is the cornerstone of what the Government can do to deliver for our early years professionals and the families they support.
Extra cash will be meaningless, however, unless it is accompanied by the wider transformation that I have spoken about, regarding how we view the early years workforce. It is a problem best encapsulated by the fact that they are highly skilled but low-paid professionals. We trust them with our most precious resource—our children—in the very early years of their lives, when so much attachment is formed. It is only right that we view them for what they are, which is educators.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Chairman, for calling me to speak.
It is, as always, a pleasure to speak in a Westminster Hall debate, but it is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine). I will put on the record, as others have, my thanks to him for all he does in relation to early years education. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind—I suspect that there is no doubt in the minds of any of us here today—that he has a deep passion and interest in this subject matter. That was illustrated in his speech today. He often raises crucial issues that impact our early years educators and I value—to be fair, I think we all value—his continued efforts in that regard.
I appreciate that, as the Minister will know, the early years system in England is different to that in Northern Ireland. Regardless, it is great to be here in Westminster Hall and to hear the view of others, and perhaps I can compare some of the things that happen here with what happens back home.
Particularly during the pandemic, our early years educators have had to deal with an unprecedented number of stresses, staffing being one of them; the hon. Gentleman referred to that in his contribution, as others did in their interventions on him. In a survey conducted by the Early Years Alliance in the autumn of 2021, 84% of respondents said that they were finding it difficult to recruit suitable new staff. No big surprise there, really; it is the same in Northern Ireland. Early Years has stated that
“Before Covid-19, Northern Ireland’s childcare sector worked hard but was under-resourced. Now it faces huge challenges, and shortages could hamstring our economic and social recovery from coronavirus.”
Thankfully, there is some hope and we in Northern Ireland have taken some action, including financially. The Health and Education Ministers have issued a £12 million support package for childcare providers. The two Ministers responsible in Northern Ireland have recognised the issue and responded in a constructive and physical way, to ensure that finances are there.
There were long-term issues prior to the pandemic, including the retention of staff, especially those who are highly qualified. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) referred to the wage structure, as did the hon. Member for Winchester. There is a need to have a wage structure in place, so that people involved in early years education can feel they are being reimbursed accordingly for all their hard efforts.
There are also ongoing issues relating to provision for special educational needs. SEN children rely heavily on routine and consistency; without it they risk a major hindrance in their development. I have regular contact on that in my constituency; I am sure others have the same. The role of early years is crucial for young children’s development. Positive benefits are dependent on several factors, including the quality of care, the nature of activities, relationships that children develop in their settings, group size, child-to-teacher ratios, staff retention, and teachers’ training and professional development. All those things collectively are critically important.
Munira Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is concerning that a report by the Education Policy Institute found that more than 40% of staff working in early years settings did not have access to training for speech and language? That is a growing area of concern, particularly as a result of the pandemic, and exacerbates the attainment gap for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. I am sure the Minister will say that the Government are putting money into early years training but, when that is worked out, it is about £460 per head of those working in the sector, and it will not cover the amount of need if we want to professionalise the workforce.
Jim Shannon
The Minister heard that request from the hon. Lady. I know the Minister is very interested in the subject and, when it comes to answering the requests from the hon. Lady, others and myself, he will be able to say what the Government are doing, with time to put that in place.
Most early years settings are private, run through unions and independent organisations. It is essential that they are given sustainable funding to carry out their role to the best of their ability. I am sure the Minister has engaged, as he always does, with his counterparts in the devolved nations, to ensure that the correct funding is going to the correct sectors of early years. When the Minister has responded in previous debates, I have always been very impressed by his interaction with the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Minister has been very up to speed on the matter. I am sure when he replies he will be able to confirm again that that is the case. I thank him in advance for his answer, ever conscious that it will be positive.
In relation to back home specifically, there are 1,200 local early care and education providers, 30,000 parents and a workforce of more than 10,000. The past year has demonstrated how essential high-quality education and childcare provision is for families and children in Northern Ireland, and that has been echoed in this debate today. Addressing childcare must be a key priority. If parents cannot access the childcare they need in order to work, we will not be able to rebuild fully our economy. The Minister responsible for that task is not here, but the work of Government to address and rejuvenate the economy is self-evident in the unemployment rates and job opportunities that we have heard about in the past few days. There is some good stuff being done there.
All discussion in relation to childcare and education starts with early years, and the importance of early learning for young children. Childcare settings have closed due to the pandemic and other factors, which may be purely financial, but Ofsted data show that there has been an ongoing decline in the number of childcare settings since 2015, due to the lack of childminders. From August 2015 to 2021, the decline levelled at 17%.
I will conclude with this comment, because I know a number of others wish to speak, and the Minister will be keen to have time to respond. I also look forward to the contribution from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). I would like to thank each and every early years employer who goes above and beyond to help the development of our young people. I have met some of them, and I am greatly impressed by them and their vocational commitment to their jobs. Their role in society is admirable, but they undoubtedly face struggles, especially with staffing, with closures and sometimes with their wage structure, so we must do more. As I have said, I hope that further discussions between the Minister and his counterparts across the UK will enable us to exchange ideas and thoughts on how we can do better. We can all learn; we can learn from the Minister and, I hope, the Minister can learn from us.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on securing the debate during Childcare and Early Education Week. Like him, I pass on my thanks to all nursery and early years workers, who have done such a fantastic job over the last two difficult years, particularly those working in Cornwall.
A child’s early education is key to their future success, so it is essential that every child has the best start in life, which means giving them the best possible support between the ages of nought and five. That is a critical stage in someone’s life, and it is essential that the early years programme is properly effective. That is why the issues in the sector need to be urgently addressed. Statistics show that 28% of four and five-year-olds finish their reception year at school without the early communication, language and literacy skills that they need to thrive.
Early years educators are crucial. It is harder to produce a curriculum in which children learn and get to the stage that they need for reception year while they think they are only playing—that takes quite a skillset. The quality of teaching is just as important to outcomes in the early years as it is in other stages of education. Quality is key for pre-schools to have the biggest impact on children’s life chances. In my opinion, early years educators should enjoy the same status as those in other teaching roles: they should be included in the same teacher training schemes and have the same bursaries and salaries as in primary teaching.
I come at the subject as someone who took full advantage of the Government’s 30 hours scheme. In 2015, when my daughter was nine months old, I had to go back to work part-time. I got to work for my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who is a very flexible employer, but not everyone is as lucky as me. Having said that, even though I was working part-time, I had help from grandparents until my daughter was old enough for me to take advantage of the Government’s scheme. I was very grateful for all that help.
Now that I have become an MP, I find myself on the other side of the fence, hearing from early years providers how difficult it is to work in that sector. There are problems in recruitment and retention. Nurseries in my constituency are struggling to retain well-qualified staff, while recent research found that many early years practitioners have left for better-paid jobs. In Cornwall, people probably earn more in hospitality than in an early years setting.
Many people in the sector are pushed out of the job that they love because of a combination of low pay, low status and increasing workload. Some workers in the profession said that the challenges of supporting their own families on the salary of a childcare worker were too great and that staying in the sector was no longer a career option.
Furthermore, the early years sector is reliant on a largely female workforce. At a time when families are generally reliant on two incomes, with greater pressure on single parents always to be in work, I am sorry to say that working in the early years sector is increasingly unviable. There is evidence of increasing paperwork and demands from parents and employers, so it is of little surprise that the workforce is such an unstable one.
Compared with some Scandinavian countries, where jobs working with babies are highly sought after and most staff are graduates with higher degrees in child psychology, qualification levels for nursery workers in the UK remain low, and access to ongoing training is very limited. Investment in training is important because replacing staff is costly in both money and time. In an industry where word of mouth matters, good staff are key to occupancy. Providers should explain to staff why training is good for them, but when will they find the time to do it?
Pay is also important. It may not necessarily be possible for employers to pay for all study time, but if people are forced to work outside work hours, they will be overworked and burnt out, and they may choose to take their expertise elsewhere. That is not good when teaching children.
With my other hat on as a member of the APPG on baby loss, one of the things I am campaigning for is continuity of care for pregnant women, which I feel should go on into the early years sector. It is important to have a stable workforce while the children are developing attachments, knowing that they are going to see the same person every time they go to that setting.
As mentioned previously, staff feel a lack of status in their roles. Pay is very difficult in the sector, but being open about it offers the opportunity to explain why things are the way they are. Providers need to show staff that they are in line with market rates and what staff can do to get increased wages; clear structures and career paths give early educators better prospects and make the sector more attractive to school leavers. I look forward to hearing from the Minster how the Government seek to address this.
More positively, I should add that I sit on the Early Years Taskforce with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom). I have had feedback from Cornwall Council and met with providers and the children and families sector in the council. We were both pleased to hear that Cornwall is already doing a lot for what we want to achieve in the sector.
I would particularly like to pay tribute to Meredith Teasdale and the excellent Together for Families team at Cornwall Council. Cornwall Council has a strong partnership with two things of particular note. It gave welcome support and advice to its early years providers during the lockdown, which was pleasing to hear, and the support has also seen an increase in the take-up of early years education places for Cornwall’s two-year-olds.
Cornwall has also maintained a network of family hubs in difficult times, which supports multidisciplinary working to support families, introducing the Best Start for Life apprentices, who provide direct support to families that need it for the first 1,001 days of a child’s life. Those are both excellent examples of where we can continue to innovate in this important area. With that in mind, I am hopeful of and want to put out another call for any pilot schemes or funding schemes that are going to be running in the early years sectors; Cornwall, with its clean boundaries and co-operative team of MPs, councillors and brilliant council officers, will always put itself forward for them.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I would like to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) for securing today’s debate.
We know from all the research that attention from adults is a crucial factor in the earliest part of a child’s life. That fact has a long history in public policy, dating in the modern era back to the Plowden Report of 1967 and reflected in decisions taken by Governments ever since, in respect of both primary education and the provision of initiatives such as the neighbourhood nurseries, children’s centres, early years centres, and now family hubs.
It seems to be a point that underpins the issue highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester in respect of ratios: the need to ensure that we have sufficient adults in any particular setting to have an effective relationship and to give sufficient attention to the children. However, it is also incredibly important as we consider the future role and shape of our early years education. As has been highlighted today, we see a mixed economy of provision in which there are examples of outstandingly good practice that make a fundamental, evidence-based difference to the lives of children.
The nursery schools we see around the country and the excellent childminders, many of whom I see in my own constituency of Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, are part of a bigger picture, where research done in the world of academia drawing on the experience of other countries—the United States, for example—in developing new initiatives designed specifically to tackle disadvantage and drive social mobility has been applied here, in the UK. I would like to focus my contribution primarily on the considerations that that brings forward for public policy as we begin to shape it for the coming years.
When we consider the shape of the system we have today, we see that our earliest educators are operating in a system of funding that is very much dominated by the needs and demands of our big secondary schools. It is a common piece of feedback from early years practitioners and those who own early years businesses—those who lead in this area—that the allocation of resources to early year settings in any given area tends to be an afterthought. It comes after the distribution of funding: first, to secondary schools; secondly, to primary schools; thirdly, to further education settings; and, finally, early years settings are thought of just before the tea break. We need to change that. Research that has come from the What Works Network, funded by the Department for Education and done over many years, shows that the funding that we allocate to the early years of a child’s life has the biggest impact on social mobility and in challenging disadvantage. It is very telling that Leon Feinstein, formerly head of evidence at the Early Intervention Foundation, where I served as a trustee, now with the Children’s Commissioner, has highlighted that the indicators from the early years foundation stage outcomes for children are extremely good predictors of how a child will do in their A-levels. We can tell pretty accurately from how a child is developing academically in their nursery school how they will do in their A-levels as they leave school at 18. We know there is very good evidence of the difference that it makes when we get this right.
In the past we have seen the Government beginning to look at not just the professionalisation of early years educators but the greater professionalisation of the workforce as a whole, for example, with the Children’s Workforce Development Council. A number of Members have referred to early years education becoming more of a graduate profession. We have seen, in respect of the teaching profession, consistency brought in to ensure that teachers are educated to master’s degree level, as a minimum. That is all part of an agenda that is about raising the attainment level of the people who are undertaking this crucial work. Clearly, the cross-party points that have been made about funding and what that means for rates of pay are also significant.
It seems to me that, as we survey the scene within the context of Government levelling-up policy, investment in doing the right things in the early years educator workforce is something that will pay dividends. It is unlikely, perhaps, to pay dividends in the short term—in two or three years—but we can see the contribution that this will make, especially to economic opportunity, in parts of our country that currently fall behind.
We have an opportunity to build on some real strengths within this overall workforce. One of the striking things is that in most parts of the country there is a significant local authority-run early years service. I am aware that in the London borough of Hillingdon, which covers about two thirds of my constituency, it is conspicuous that staff who work in that environment tend to be people who have 30 or 40 years’ experience and the highest levels of training and development. We need to make sure that, where we have access to that kind of resource, the benefits are spread so that those smaller, private voluntary providers—new entrants to the market—can learn from people who have been providing child care to a very high standard for 30 or 40 years. These are the people who have seen different trends come in and out and who know how to support parents who may be struggling with the challenges of bringing up extremely young children. It is an opportunity to connect what happens in the early years education workforce with our family hubs, our children’s centres, our nursery schools and into primary education and childminding. It would mean the skills and insights that we see in some settings are able to be shared effectively.
It is worth recognising that as we face this future we know—there is a cross-party acknowledgment—that this is not just about freeing parents to be more economically active. We have gone through periods in the past when the primary purpose of Government intervention in this area was intended, in particular, to make it possible for mums to return to work or to increase their working hours. That is important; we know that the mother’s level of both education and income is very important to a child’s life chances—to a greater degree than is the case with fathers. We also know that all this research demonstrates that the quality of early education really can drive a child’s opportunity later on.
As we see more Government interventions, such as the growth of tax-free childcare—something that I personally benefit from, having two young children—there is a need to ensure that ratios continue to support a high-quality offer. There is also a need to ensure that childcare is not something that arises as a consideration in a parent’s life only once the child is born and they need to think about going back to work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) said, it should instead be something that is considered during antenatal care. That way, parents will know what to expect and how to make sure they are getting the right support for their child. All those things are incredibly important.
If I may offer a final suggestion to the Minister as a way of beginning to join some of these ideas up, we know that all local authorities have a sufficiency duty around childcare, which was introduced by the last Labour Government. That duty is often misunderstood. It is not about ensuring a sufficient supply; it is about having a plan to reflect the needs of the local population. How that happens varies quite a lot around the country, according to local demographics and local resources. However, there is an opportunity to use that sufficiency duty as a vehicle to bring together so many of these issues that affect not just the workforce but the future of children. We should consider how it can become more of a driver to share good practice and ways of addressing some of the financial challenges that individual settings of different kinds may face. It can be used to ensure that the research funded by the Department for Education and the research taking place in universities is brought together in a way that supports the agenda that we all share.
I hope that my contribution has been useful, and in particular that it has highlighted my experience in a local authority. I will finish by welcoming the continued focus that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester brings to this issue. Often, the Government are rightly accused of thinking only about things that will make a difference in the next two or three years, but if we get early years right, it will make a difference to the lives of children and to their future as adults for decades ahead.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) for securing this important debate. Sensible contributions have already been made about the need for investment in the early years workforce, the development and retention of staff, and the impact of early years education, especially for the most disadvantaged children in our constituencies—an issue in which I have held a long-term interest since my local government days and via my mother, Mrs Sandra Lewer, who was a nursery nurse and infant teacher.
The many challenges facing early learning providers have been exacerbated by the pandemic but also, importantly, by changes in funding from central Government and local authorities and the impact that they could have on post-covid recovery. That is what I will focus my contribution on.
Last week, I met Lyndsey Barnett, the CEO of Camrose early years centre, which is based in one of the most deprived areas in my constituency of Northampton South. The centre is a maintained nursery school and day care provider. It offers a fantastic quality of service from 8 am to 6 pm, including during school holidays. That is hugely important, because it means that working parents can drop their children off before work and collect them after the working day. Camrose is a benchmark for the excellent service that can be provided across my constituency and beyond to families from low-income areas who want to do all they can to work, and it is therefore crucial to the economy’s post-covid recovery. With the proposed restructuring of funding from the local authority as a result of central Government funding changes, the centre may have to cut back the services it offers.
That centre already faces many challenges in looking after vulnerable children, but it goes well beyond the remit of just a day care provider, not only supporting and educating young children—I reflect on the comments with which my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester set the scene for the debate—but offering support to their families. It is that complete child approach, acknowledging the crucial nature of the first 1,001 days—a frequent and key concern of my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom)—that makes recent Government announcements about family hubs so welcome. As a county council leader from 2009 to 2013, I must say that this renewed focus seems very like the children’s centre network that I promoted at that time, although I understand that Ministers will wish to stress that this time, it is different.
As Confucius said:
“By three methods we may learn wisdom: first, by reflection, which is noblest; second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.”
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I apologise, Mr Gray, for appearing a couple of minutes late; I sprinted across the courtyard to try to get here to speak in this important debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) for bringing it forward.
Early years education is vital to the development of our children—our future adults—and to our levelling-up agenda. Education and early years are key when we talk about what that means, what we are going to do, and how we tie together a coherent package around the phrase “levelling up”. Education is absolutely at the heart of that.
Just a week or so ago, I was lucky enough to visit Kangaroo Teacher Led Childcare in my constituency, where I met Alison, the owner and manager of the centre. She was adamant—my hon. Friend made this argument too—about the importance of the education element of early years settings. They do not just provide childcare—particularly not her setting, as she is a qualified teacher and a former deputy head of a primary school.
Alison explained how important her setting and others are to everything we understand about development in those preschool years—everything from nutrition to brain development, and the social, language and communication skills that are important. Even in that setting, I could see the difference between those children who had had many hours of early years education throughout their childhood and those who had not been socialising in the same way in their early years. The difference in speech and communication between those children was profound. We know that there is a huge correlation between children’s communication skills, in particular—their ability to express themselves and how they feel about things—and negative outcomes such as being expelled, being unemployed or even going to prison in later life, so this is hugely important from that perspective.
As someone who believes in small government and low taxes, I have always felt that if there is one area of life or society that the Government absolutely should invest and intervene in, it is education, because that is what sets people up to be independent adults who can make their own decisions in later life, and who hopefully will not need the Government to intervene.
From that perspective, I welcomed the Chancellor’s Budget last year, which put more money into the sector, with funding for workforce development in particular. We have already touched on how important that is for the sector. All of us in the room, who run what are effectively very small businesses, will recognise the challenge of having a very shallow structure where the most junior person in the office might only be one or two layers below us. There are very few places for people to go in that hierarchy, and often, after not many years, it is difficult to continue to progress and develop people, so they leave. We often find that in early years settings.
To retain staff, we need to help them and continue to develop and train them throughout their careers; those careers will be short if we do not do that. I would love to see a joined-up workforce strategy across early years, as was mentioned earlier, but also into other education and care pathways, such as primary schools and children’s services. People could then start—yes, perhaps on low wages—in an early years setting, but clearly see and understand the many varied, positive routes to all sorts of different careers. I think we need to do the same for social care and health; if people starting as care workers could see the massive range of opportunities that exist within the NHS, that would change our ability to recruit and retain people in social care. That is hugely important.
There was also £500 million in the Budget for family hubs and the Start4Life advice service. All that will be beneficial to our wider set of children’s services, and to those interventions in support of the most disadvantaged children.
My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester used the phrase “market failure” to describe early years. I hear that phrase a lot around children’s services and early years settings. I think it has also been used by Josh MacAlister when talking about the wider children’s services sector—about foster care and looked-after children. All these areas are hugely important to our ability to support the most disadvantaged kids and to churn out—for want of a better phrase—adults who can live productive and happy lives. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister feels strongly about this, too. There is so much to grasp, and trying to fix the market failure will be a huge challenge, but it is such an important challenge for him to focus on.
I will make two practical suggestions before concluding. They are only simple, and they are perhaps not the answer to all these problems, which will take much wider and more challenging work. First, a couple of Members have already touched on the fact that they access free childcare. I access free childcare—30 hours—for both my children. I waited with bated breath for the day when my bills would be halved, when my elder son turned three, and we took advantage of that great benefit. We did not need it; I was on an MP’s wage and my wife worked part time. People on up to £100,000 a year can access that taxpayer-funded benefit. I am all for extending the benefits system—the universal credit system—into the workplace slightly if that helps to encourage people to be in work rather than getting trapped on benefits, but a hundred grand a year is kind of pushing it. I am not sure that that is entirely necessary. I think we could redistribute that money in a way that helps more of the most disadvantaged children, where we see a particularly acute issue. I think that more children accessing free childcare would get much more bang for the buck.
Secondly, one way to use that might be to offer the early years experience to more looked-after children. I raised this with the Minister informally last week. It is really important to recognise that not every child in the care system, even, is able to access early years education in the same way or in the same amount. A child in foster care does not have the same right to 30 hours as other children in the care system do. There is no reason why they should not, other than an arbitrary line that has been drawn in the sand. For those children who have either lost parents or been taken away from their parents and had very traumatic experiences in their early lives, consistency and support from an early years provider could be hugely beneficial. It could be life-changing for those children. There is no reason why a child should not be able to get that if they are living with their nan or auntie rather than in children’s residential care. We could make a very simple change there, and I think it would also help us to incentivise people to begin to be foster carers or to take on their nieces and nephews in those circumstances. I think that would happen if there were the offer of a bit of respite and some incentive for people to join and help in those services.
Those are some small examples of areas where I think we could make an early change that would benefit a lot of young people. As many Members have said, this is a hugely important sector, and the Minister has a huge task on his hands to try to fix just some of it, but I know that he feels very strongly about it, as we all do. There is a real opportunity, through the MacAlister review and these kinds of conversations about early years and additional changes in funding, to make a real difference to the most disadvantaged children. That needs to be at the heart of our levelling-up agenda, and I trust that it will be when we see the work from the Government on this over the next months and years.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) for initiating this debate today. To be debating this issue in Childcare and Early Education Week is really important, but it is even more important that every single person in the House is constantly celebrating the role of early years providers and the workforce, and recognising them as educators. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we could not do without these people.
My husband and I work full time. We work incredibly long hours. It is definitely not a nine-to-five existence, and I need a real muddle of support to get me out of the house dressed, on time and able to string sentences together, which I probably will not be able to do brilliantly today. The childcare costs and pressures on families around the country are acute. I urge hon. Members to have a look at Instagram and to google the hashtags #parenting, #children and #childcare. Some of the statistics and information that come out are quite worrying. People are incredibly stretched.
I have said this before, but the juggle is real. It does not matter what someone does as a job or if they are not working at all; if mums and dads have little people running around with seemingly infinite energy each day, that means that every day is stretched even before they find out that their early years provider, nursery or childcare person cannot be helpful that day because they are stuck at home in isolation—they are perfectly well, but they have had a positive covid test—or that the nursery has had to close down because it just cannot make the numbers work on the business case. Military planning goes into all my friends’ days to get children to the right place at the right time. Families just cannot cope with these sudden shocks. It is for us in this place to try to find ways of smoothing out those shocks, or at least lessening their impact.
If anyone has the chance, I encourage them to listen the podcast “Parenting Hell” by the comedians and dads Josh Widdicombe—I can’t say his name; they get kids to try to say “Josh Widdicombe”, and they say it better than I can—and Rob Beckett. It is a brilliant look at an entertaining version of all the chaos that comes from real-life parenting. It is a nice bit of my week to know that I am part of a big club that is very dysfunctional.
We know that the transition to parenthood is one of the greatest pressures on a relationship or a marriage, so we have to do better at stopping these sudden shocks and problems. The system is quite literally causing family breakdowns, and we know the impact of family breakdowns on the country, on relationships, on families and on finances.
As we heard from a number of Members, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are incredibly committed to this issue. They have recognised the early years workforce and are very respectful of them. The new Secretary of State for Education, upon being appointed, included the word “families” in his strapline and mission statement, alongside “education” and “skills”. That shows a real commitment to the cause. All that has led to the Treasury quadrupling the money going into early years education, and millions of pounds to support family hubs, which will be transformational in our local areas where we can get them off the ground. The “Best Start for Life” programme is transformational and will provide a focus for families and our little people. However, we have to go further.
Let me make a couple of points that have already been touched on. In 2019, the staff turnover rate in the early years workforce—I am thinking only about nursery staff at the moment, excluding childminders—was 24%, compared with the UK average of 15% to 18% in other sectors. The cost of that turnover in 2019 alone was calculated as £879 million.
The Social Mobility Commission, in its report “The stability of the early years workforce in England”, found that the six most salient barriers to a stable early years workforce were low income; high workload and responsibilities; over-reliance on female practitioners; insufficient training and opportunities for progression; low status and reputation, and negative organisational culture. That is a pretty stark list. This is a workforce who feel they have low status, and they are the people we trust with our most precious charges—we send our little people into their care. They are people who are incredibly skilled and have solid qualifications—it is often a vocational passion to work in the profession—and they have reserves of patience that I certainly do not have when I am trying to feed my toddler vegetables, which she will not eat.
The other point is about the low public funding in comparison with other levels of education. The public subsidy for early years is about £3,000 per pupil, compared with £5,000 in primary, £6,600 in secondary and £6,500 for university students. That is incredibly frustrating given that it is now accepted that the first 1,001 days of a child’s life are the most important. We have heard that early intervention can change not only the life of the child and their family early on, but the path of their life; it will probably change the type of state services that the child—and then the adult—uses. Why are we not investing more up front and upstream?
I want to thank the early years providers in Stroud and around the country. They are levelling up on a daily basis. They were levelling up even before it was a thing with a title. There is a small but perfectly formed gang of MPs and peers, and a very dedicated ministerial team, who really believe in the early years workforce and the value that they all bring to future generations. I am working with the think-tank Onward to investigate and research many of the childcare issues, including costs, that we have heard about today. I also sit on the Work and Pensions Committee. The Chair and the Committee have kindly agreed to investigate the childcare element of universal credit, with the cap and the up-front payments. We will be doing work on that this year, and I hope it will be helpful to the ministerial team who are thinking about this.
I am grateful for this debate. I am sure that all of us could talk about this subject all day long. I look forward to hearing the outcome and the views of the Minister.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and to follow all my hon. Friends. As one of the final speakers, I could simply say that I agree with everything that has been said and then sit down, but I will try a little harder than that. There have been excellent contributions, all of them articulate and passionate, because we all know the importance of the sector.
I should start by saying that I am the chair of—I have to check this because it has a long title—the APPG on nursery schools, nursery and reception classes, which essentially covers the grant-maintained sector. I am passionate about that, as was somebody else, and I wish he were here today. I spent many hours with the late and much-missed Member for Birmingham, Erdington, who was a passionate vice-chairman of the APPG for many years before I became chair. I will always be grateful for the insights that he gave me. We were both driven by the same thing.
When looking at this sector, we have to ask whether we just talk about money or whether we say, “Let us put a little bit here and a little bit there.” This debate is fundamental to why we are all MPs. If we are MPs or politicians because we want to get the fabled equality of opportunity for everyone, we must recognise that unless we get this right, there is no equality of opportunity. All the academic evidence in the world shows that the most important developmental stage for a child is, as has been stated, between zero and five. If they are behind academically and socially during that period, they do not catch up.
I am also chair of the APPG on youth employment. We do a lot of work on training and skills at age 16 and the choices that young people make at that stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) talked about the impact of skilled workers. I talk repeatedly about how that decides—it cannot be any stronger than that—their ability to make the correct choice as to where they want to go with their career, what skills they want to have and where they want to be in their life.
I see that time is ticking on, Mr Gray, but I want to talk about my own experiences, if I may. I have been a governor at Hoyle Nursery School in Bury for the best part of 10 years. When I went there, we had a budget of about £500,000. There is a fundamental difficulty because the business model for the grant-maintained sector is very different from the business model in the private, voluntary and independent sectors. We certainly do not have time for a debate on how to equalise that, but it is an important factor.
We had no money. I remember that on the first day I went to the school, I looked around and I said, “Where is the investment? I know a lot of investment has gone into this school over the years. Under the Labour Government, lots of money was put into nursery schools.” The headteacher said to me, “Nothing has really changed. If you had been here five, six or seven years ago, you would probably have seen the same thing.” What we did do was put the money into training highly motivated staff to get the outcomes that were necessary for the young people who were there.
There were some challenges. We were a failing school when I first went there and we changed a few things. I became chair of governors, and in four years we got two outstanding Ofsted reports. In that school, 17 different languages are spoken.
One thing that has not been talked about today is the impact of intensive work at a nursery level on children with special educational needs. The SEN unit in the school that I am a governor of, and have been for a decade, literally changes lives. I want to pay tribute to the late, great Val Kay. Sadly, she passed away, but I worked with her for many years. Rachel O’Neil, who is the headteacher now, is driving forward a facility that does not differentiate between kids. It has an all-inclusive, progressive provision that gives SEN children the same ability to progress as it does children from any other background.
We have many children who have English as a second language and many children from dysfunctional families. The challenges are overcome. I do not have time to put into words the work, skill and love that are put into those children to ensure that when they leave that school, they have the best chance not only to progress emotionally, academically and socially, but to go on to the next stage of their education and take that further. I believe that in the sector I am talking about, the Government provided three years of supplementary funding, which was much to be welcomed.
I will make a few brief points to the Minister. He will know, because he is not only a good man but very much on top of his brief, that in the grant-maintained sector the costs of covid are mounting. There is also an argument for a consultation, or at least an interaction, regarding fair funding for the grant-maintained sector, so that funding is in the places where it is most needed, where this provision can make a difference. What does this sector do? It transforms lives, not just for the next five minutes, but throughout life. It improves relationships and gives people opportunity.
Returning to the start of my speech, when I went into that school, I looked at the young kids around that table and wondered what I wanted for them, if I were to be chair of governors. If I wanted them to have the chance to be astronauts, bus drivers, doctors or whatever they wanted to be, the only way to do that would be with investment and highly motivated, skilled educators who would put that provision in place.
As ever in this place, we talk a lot in general about putting in money, but unless there are bespoke leaders at a local level, it will not work. We are lucky in my area that we have fantastic teachers; I am sure that is so in Cornwall and everywhere else. This has been a brilliant debate and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester. To call him a doughty campaigner does not do him justice. I was pleased to be under his wing at the meeting with the Chancellor. I know that the Minister will do what he can to ensure that this sector thrives and flourishes.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on securing this important debate to mark Childcare and Early Education Week, and on his work with the APPG on childcare and early education to establish and promote this important week to acknowledge, celebrate and reflect on the vital role of the early years sector.
I pay tribute to everyone who works in early years education and childcare. There are few more important tasks than ensuring that every child has the best possible start in life. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to everyone who dedicates their working time to looking after and supporting very young children to grow, develop and thrive, whether as childminders or in nursery settings. It is a vocation to work with children. Across the country, as we speak, hundreds of thousands of early years professionals, the vast majority of them women, are nurturing and caring for children, and supporting them to develop and grow.
The theme for this year’s Childcare and Early Education Week is, “We are educators”. Under-fives learn in different ways from older children, but they are learning voraciously every single day. The best early years provision is underpinned by an understanding of child development and a richness of curriculum, every bit as complex as that found in our formal school system. Early years educators have the capacity to have a dramatic and lifelong impact on a child’s life, protecting against the effects of poverty and disadvantage, and reducing inequality. They can literally alter the foundations. “We are educators” is an important statement of fact, but it is also a challenge, particularly to the Government, to give early years professionals the status they deserve as a vital part of our education system that has parity with post-five provision.
I thank all hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon. We are in danger of an outbreak of consensus on the importance of improvements in the status and pay of early years professionals, of staffing ratios and of good SEND provision and support for kinship carers. I would like to pay tribute in her absence to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who was my predecessor in this role and who for six years tirelessly showed her dedication to the early years sector. I join the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) in paying tribute to Jack Dromey, who was a dedicated champion of early years education and who I know is very much missed by Members from all parties in the House.
Today, we are celebrating the early years and childcare sector, but the speeches we have heard are in stark contrast to the woeful neglect of the sector that we have seen during the past two years of the coronavirus pandemic. Time after time, early years provision has been an afterthought for this Government, considered and treated differently from the rest of the education system, and too often early years providers are left to fend for themselves.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her powerful speech. Does she agree that the situation she just described is reflected in the Government’s decision to cut over 1,300 Sure Start centres in the last decade? In one year alone in Barnsley, nine were shut and we have a quarter of our kids growing up in poverty. Although family hubs are welcome, does she share my disappointment that we could have prevented there being a need for them by not shutting Sure Start centres in the first place?
Helen Hayes
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We had that infrastructure in Sure Start centres across the country, but 1,000 of them have closed, which is a shameful part of this Government’s record. Although it is welcome that they have recognised that terrible mistake with the introduction of family hubs, 150 family hubs across the country are no substitute for the 1,000 Sure Start centres that have closed their doors for good.
Early years settings have been open to all children since July 2020, without access to lateral flow tests or to additional funds for enhanced cleaning or personal protective equipment, despite the obvious inability of staff working with very small children to socially distance. Staff have been left vulnerable to infection and anxious about their own health and that of their families. I have been contacted by many providers in recent weeks who are struggling to stay open because of exceptionally high levels of sickness absence, as omicron has whipped through early years settings. With that coming on top of two years of stress and uncertainty, many who work in early years settings are exhausted and burnt out, and they are quite simply bewildered that the Government have not had their back.
Even before the pandemic, there were deep structural problems in the early years sector. The way in which the Government’s 30-hour entitlement is implemented does not work for providers and it certainly does not work for parents. A freedom of information request by the Early Years Alliance revealed that the cost of “fully funding” the entitlement would reach £7.49 an hour by 2020-21. Knowing that, the Government contribute average hourly funding of just £4.89 for a place for a three or four-year-old. Is it any wonder that the cost of childcare for working parents is spiralling up and up, while thousands of providers have closed and child-adult ratios are increasing in many settings?
The UK is among the most expensive places in the OECD for childcare, despite spending more than £4 billion of public money on it a year. The cost of childcare is a huge pressure on household finances at the best of times, but in the context of the current cost of living crisis, the pressure is unbearable for many families. High costs also deepen disadvantage, creating a system in which wealthier families can afford the highest quality provision, while families on lower incomes all too often have to settle for less.
As we begin to emerge from the pandemic, dealing with the devastating impact that it has had on our children should be a top priority for the Government. The youngest children are suffering the consequences of lockdown in their speech and language development, gross motor skills and social skills, and they have been denied many vital, indeed formative, experiences. In contrast to our Prime Minister, most of our youngest children will not have had a birthday party in the past two years—a contrast that shames him.
As a result of all that has been sacrificed, primary schools are reporting higher numbers of children who are not school-ready when they arrive in reception, and the impacts are worst for the poorest children. There is a gaping disadvantage gap that must be addressed urgently.
However, while the Government are mired in defending an indefensible Prime Minister, they have no vision or plan for the early years sector. There was no plan to support the sector through the pandemic; providers felt, in the words of the Early Years Alliance, as if they were “the forgotten sector”. There is no plan to support families with young children who are struggling with exorbitant childcare costs and who now also face a biting cost of living crisis. Most importantly, there is no plan for children, to provide the additional input that the youngest children need to catch up on all that they have lost during the pandemic.
Labour fully recognise the vital role of early years educators, who deserve recognition, gratitude and support, as well as a plan from this Government. I pay tribute to them today and I hope that this afternoon the Minister will provide the plan that is so desperately needed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Will Quince)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on securing this important debate, which comes during the APPG’s Childcare and Early Education Week. I know—I can get the sense from Westminster Hall today—how passionately all Members care about this issue. Given the importance of this sector, I welcome the awareness of it that this week will rightly bring. I am very keen to meet the APPG; I am sorry that we could not make that happen today, due to pre-existing commitments. Nevertheless, I am very keen to meet the members of the APPG and to work with them in the future.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate, which have been constructive and thoughtful, and for the points they have made. I will endeavour to respond to as many as I can during the course of my response, conscious that we will have a Division in about 10 or 15 minutes.
I put on the record my and the Government’s sincere thanks and appreciation for the hard work, dedication and compassion that early years educators show every day. Despite the turbulence over the course of the pandemic, they have continued to keep our children safe and learning.
The early years experience is a vital part of a child’s education, as so many Members have set out today, that develops cognitive, social and emotional skills that set them up for life. Those who work in the sector are rightly passionate about those issues, and I have seen that at first hand. I have only been in my role as Minister for Children and Families since September, but I have visited numerous early years settings, and it is one of the best bits of the job. Every single one is a truly uplifting and inspirational experience, and I look forward to many more. A visit is always full of laughter, because the children come out with the funniest things—I forget, because mine are a little older now. We also see the passion and dedication of the staff, as well as their love, care and compassion—it is overwhelming.
Evidence shows that high-quality childcare supports children’s development, prepares children for school and, of course, allows parents to balance work and family life. We are doing more than any previous Government to ensure that as many families as possible can access high-quality and affordable childcare. I am proud of the progress that the early years sector has made in recent years. In 2019, nearly three out of four children achieved a good level of development, compared to around one out of two in 2013. In 2021, 97% of providers were rated good or outstanding by Ofsted, which was up from 85% in 2015. I am sure that Members will welcome that considerable progress.
It is important not to be complacent, and I will certainly not be. We must build on that excellent performance by the sector, particularly in the current tough circumstances. The question is, how can we do better, because we can do better? In my opinion, and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester set this out elegantly and articulately, the answer is people. It is all about people who are educators. As of spring 2021, there were 62,000 providers offering 1.5 million Ofsted-registered childcare places in England, with almost 330,000 educators in those settings. The majority of educators work in group-based settings, or for such providers, with 16% in school-based settings—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South said—
Will Quince
North, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly)—I should not have got that one wrong! I will address his point later.
A further 12% are childminders and assistants. The expertise of those educators is our greatest asset in ensuring that early years provision is of the highest quality. We must invest in the workforce, and that is exactly what the Government are doing. I will set out how in more detail later.
I now turn to some of the specific points made in the debate, before going on to some of the broader themes. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, in his constructive contribution, had a quote—
“we would be lost without these people. They are truly amazing”—
and I could not agree more. I have—from next week—a 10-year-old and a six-year-old. Recently, they have been through numerous childcare settings. I understand the importance of the settings and how vital they are not only to the parents, but to the children. They love—I use that word deliberately—the people who look after them in the day, those educators in the early years settings.
We have to address how the profession is viewed and valued—as educators and more than just childcare. My hon. Friend was absolutely right about that, and I will come on to it. He started and finished his speech with how early years staff are educators; early years is far more than just childcare. I totally agree, and I look forward to working with him and the APPG to see what more we can do in that area.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the work we do with the devolved Administrations. A huge amount of work goes on at the level of officials. I have to confess, I have not yet met my counterpart to discuss this issue, but I very much look forward to doing so.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who is not in her place but to whom I will respond none the less, raised the vital issue of speech and language. We have created the professional development programme and we have put a lot of emphasis on speech and language, because of its importance. We invested an extra £27 million, as part of the £180 million recovery programme. We also have the SEND review and, as part of that, it is vital that we have early identification and early intervention. It is important that that happens in early years settings wherever possible.
Stephanie Peacock
On the point about SEN provision, I have been contacted by a nursery in Barnsley which provides support—one-to-one support, in many cases—for children with SEN. It is worried that a number of nurseries are having to turn away children because there simply is not the funding. My local council has a deficit of £11 million, which is set to double in the coming years. What are the Government doing on SEN generally, and more specifically on funding?
Will Quince
The hon. Lady is right that there are significant issues within the SEND system, which is why we have the SEND review. There are local authorities with significant pressure on their budgets. We are putting more money into the high-needs budget—about 10%, year on year—but we are conscious that money alone will not solve the issue. That is why we have the SEND review. I am working at pace on that as we speak. The SEND review will conclude and we will launch a Green Paper and a consultation by the end of March, so within the first quarter of the year. The hon. Lady’s point is well made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) mentioned people leaving the profession. I will come back to that point, because it is really important. Recruitment and retention are key. I hear her call about the pilots in Cornwall and I will certainly look into that; I am always keen to visit Cornwall, whenever possible, so I will bear that in mind.
My hon. Friend also mentioned a largely female workforce, which is something I want to address. I want to see more men working in early years settings. It is really important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester referenced, the Government want families to stay together wherever possible. Where they do not, there is not necessarily a male role model in the household, so it is really important in education settings that there are good male role models for children to look up to. We have the Pulse survey, which monitors the private, voluntary and independent sector. We meet with the sector regularly to keep on top of these issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) mentioned ratios, which I will come on to very briefly. I assure him that local authorities can retain only 5% of the funding allocated; they have to pass the rest on. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) referenced the whole-child approach, the first 1,001 days and family hubs. I recognise that he welcomes the £300 million investment that the Government are making in this area.
Numerous hon. Members mentioned funding. I agree that high-quality childcare supports children’s learning and development and prepares young people for school, as well as having a huge impact on later outcomes. That is why the sector is working really hard to support children and their parents. It is also why the Government have spent more than £3.5 billion in each of the last three years on early education entitlements, and we will continue to support families with their childcare costs.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester rightly pointed out, we announced additional funding of £160 million for 2022-23, £180 million the year after and £170 million the year after that, compared to the current year. That is for local authorities to increase the hourly rates paid to childcare providers and reflects the cost pressures that are anticipated and the changes in the number of eligible children.
So what does that mean? For 2022-23, we will increase the hourly funding rates for all local authorities—by 21p an hour for the disadvantage entitlement for two-year-olds in the vast majority of areas and by 17p an hour for the entitlement for three and four-year-olds.
I want to come on to the point about recruitment and retention, because they are really important.
Will Quince
If the hon. Lady will give me time, I will come back to that point if I can.
Recruitment and retention are really important. Early years provision in 2021 was delivered by an estimated 328,000 staff. The majority of providers work to the required staff to child ratios for each age group, with some providers reporting that their ratios are more generous than the statutory minimum. We recognise that recruitment and retention are key issues for the sector, and local authorities are reporting significant pressures on providers. Importantly, we are working with the sector to build our understanding of the situation and how we might better support providers. We have commissioned qualitative research interviews on the theme of the early years workforce and a survey on the impact that covid is having on the workforce. We are working closely with the sector to identify some of those issues.
To aid recruitment and retention, we have also invested £153 million in programmes to support workforce developments as part of the £180 million package that I referenced. However, I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester said about the pressures and the questions he rightly raised about salary and how that impacts on recruitment. I will continue to listen to him, the all-party parliamentary group and the sector.
On ratios, the statutory framework for early years foundation stage sets out the staff to child ratios to help ensure that there is adequate staffing to meet the needs of, and to safeguard, children. They assume that the youngest children are the most vulnerable—I think that is the right approach—and need the greatest number of staff, but providers may need more staff where other needs are identified—for example, special educational needs. The Government are committed to working with the sector to support covid recovery, as well as on the broader concerns.
I want to clarify that there is a difference in ratios between England and Scotland, and I will look at that closely, but I assure all those who have raised the issue of ratios that I will always take an evidence-based approach. I will be very careful and considered in the way that I approach this and I will always put at the heart of this issue the needs of children and young people and the safeguarding of children. I will of course work with the APPG.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) referenced military-style childcare planning. I very much recognise that myself. Childcare costs and pressures are acute for many families. They are the second highest cost only to their mortgage or rent. We recognise that and it is something I am looking at that closely as part of my portfolio. I am interested to hear about her work on the universal credit offer. At the moment, the take-up for that is, frankly, too low.
With regard to maintained nursery schools, the points were well made and I echo the comments made about the late Member for Birmingham Erdington, Jack Dromey, who was a passionate advocate in this area. He last raised this with me just before Christmas and his voice will be sorely missed. The funding rate for maintained nursery schools will increase by 3.5% next year. That gives them the long-term certainty that they asked for. However, I recognise that they have some unique characteristics, such as a headteacher and a special educational needs co-ordinator, so I am looking at this closely and I will raise this with the Treasury.
Finally, I will touch again on SEND, which is absolutely a passion of mine. As part of the SEND review, we have to get early identification and early action at the heart of that. The earlier we identify the need, the better the support we can put in place, giving parents confidence, but most importantly, providing better outcomes for children and young people with special educational needs.
To close, I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester for the support he has given this agenda today and to all those who have contributed to the debate. The steps we have taken underline the importance of early education and the role of educators in that sector. The Government have made a substantial financial commitment that will in decades to come provide the workforce with the skills and expertise to ensure that no child is left behind. I look forward to continuing to work with my hon. Friend, the APPG and the sector to progress these issues further.
Steve Brine
I thank the excellent Minister, who has given us much that we across the sector and the different all-party groups represented here today can work with. He is a breath of fresh air to the sector and I thank him.
There has been a consistency and clarity across the speakers today, and they have all made very good points. However, there has been some consistent messaging around the workforce and pay. An early years worker once sent me an advert from the local newspaper that showed that dog walkers were offered more pay than those who look after our precious little ones. As long as that is the situation, Houston, we have a problem.
I repeat my call that we have to treat early years workers as educators and we have to pay them at a level commensurate with reception year teachers. We should have a policy aim to bridge that gap. It is very much a policy aim that I and the all-party group have and we would like to get it on to the Government’s agenda and make it their policy aim.
I thank my colleagues, and I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on the Opposition Front Bench for her constructive comments, although I would have liked to see more of her Back Benchers behind her—I really would.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role of early years educators.
Cyber-flashing
(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
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of cyberflashing-related harms.
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Gray. Let me start by explaining the perverse act of cyber-flashing. In essence, it is where a person is sent an unsolicited sexual image. There are two currents to this, and the first is through social media. More often than not, indecent images are persistently sent to Instagram, Snapchat or Twitter accounts. The second, more perverse angle, is where an image is received in a public place on someone’s device, just because their Bluetooth or AirDrop happens to be on. It often happens in public places such as on trains and buses or in lecture halls, where someone is in close proximity to people they do not know. It happens to men and women of all ages, and, sadly, is only increasing.
Cyber-flashing can be intimidating and distressing but, more than that, if someone receives an indecent image from a stranger in a public place, they are in a very vulnerable position. They are often alone with their perpetrator. Sometimes, the perpetrator is there, deliberately watching them, waiting for their reaction. It is a way of creating anxiety, a feeling of being watched and lack of safety, with the inherent threat that it could be followed up by a physical act of sexual harassment or violence.
There is evidence that cyber-flashing in this way is a gateway offence to more serious acts of violence. The man who killed Sarah Everard was accused of flashing before he went on to commit his horrific crime. It is time we made cyber-flashing a criminal offence on a par with its physical counterpart, to ensure the law catches up with technology.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
My hon. Friend has done incredible work highlighting the seriousness of cyber-flashing. Does she agree that it needs to be a specific criminal offence, alongside public sexual harassment? I would love to hear the Minister’s views on that.
Fay Jones
I thank the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee not just for her intervention, but for her work in this area. I agree with her, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response later on.
At present, if someone is a victim of cyber-flashing the avenues to seek justice are limited at best. The Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981, which criminalises the public display of indecent matter, is little known and likely to be little used. Laws on image-based sexual abuse are not based on an understanding of power and entitlement as the factors behind sexual harassment. They focus too narrowly on perpetrator motivations and do not provide the protection of anonymity for complainants, which I think is crucial.
Cyber-flashing is not an entirely new or recent problem. I am not the first to raise the need to criminalise cyber-flashing in this place. I pay tribute to hon. Friends who have partnered with the magazine Grazia, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) who has endorsed this campaign.
Since I have started talking about making cyber-flashing an offence in its own right, I have received not just many messages of support, but countless emails and social media messages from women who have been subjected to this cruel act. I pay particular tribute to the television actor and personality, Emily Atack, who was invited to Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) to talk about her experiences. I explained that I had sent her a message on Instagram asking to work with her on this campaign; she apologised to me, explaining that she never saw the message because her account is deluged with indecent images. I congratulate Emily, and others, for having the courage to speak out.
One field in which cyber-flashing is extremely common is online dating apps. I have been working with the app Bumble, which says that cyber-flashing is shockingly prevalent in the UK and disproportionately affects young women. According to a Bumble survey, in the past year alone 48% of millennial women said that they had been sent an unsolicited sexual image. One in four of those surveyed found that the prevalence of unsolicited lude images had got worse during the covid-19 pandemic, while one in three believed that cyber-flashing had become part and parcel of online behaviour. I do not know about you, Mr Gray, but I find that shocking. If we can agree on one thing this afternoon, it is that the unsolicited sharing of lewd images is not a part of normal courtship.
Education is one way in which we can seek to address this growing problem—making young people aware of the harm that this act can inflict on someone. This is already happening, thanks to campaign-led organisations such as Brook, which provide relationships and sex advice in schools throughout England and Wales. Its campaigners are also spending this freezing-cold Tuesday afternoon sitting on College Green with their advertising van. I encourage all Members, if they have a moment, to go and show their support for the campaign to ban cyber-flashing. I credit them for being hardy enough to stay there all afternoon.
Brook’s campaign to raise awareness of the harm caused by cyber-flashing is based on changing people’s behaviour and educating around consent. It is illegal to send someone younger than 18 an indecent image, yet almost half of millennial women who have received such an image were younger than 18 the first time that it happened. This figure rises to 71% when looking at 18 to 24-year-olds. What is illegal offline should be illegal online, and the law needs strengthening to achieve that. In June 2018, the Government introduced the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019, which sought to make upskirting a specific criminal offence. This is a prime example of how the law is involved in catching up with technological advancement.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on her fantastic campaign. She is talking about the law keeping up; it seems to me that one of the key problems when it comes to offences using digital technology is the speed with which criminals exploit technology—in this case to sexually harass people, and mainly women—far outstrips the speed of our legislative process. While it is important that we get things right, does my hon. Friend agree that we need to take steps to speed up our response to new sexual offences such as upskirting, threats to share intimate images and cyber-flashing, so that we can better protect people sooner?
Fay Jones
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is an area where Government and technology companies need to work hand in hand and at pace, in order to catch up. Until the specific offence of upskirting was properly legislated for, the best alternative offence of outraging public decency was used to prosecute offenders. Victims deserve better.
In 2018, the Women and Equalities Committee recommended that cyber-flashing must be addressed by Government. It said:
“The Government should introduce a new law on image-based sexual abuse which criminalises all non-consensual creation and distribution of intimate sexual images, including altered images, and threats to do so. This should be a sexual offence based on the victim’s lack of consent and not on perpetrator motivation, and include an automatic right to life-long anonymity for the complainant, as with other sexual offences.”
Four years on, if the Government want to make their Online Safety Bill a gold standard for internet safety—I commend their ambition—they must include legislation against cyber-flashing. I was concerned by the report published yesterday by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which said that, as currently drafted, it is not robust enough to tackle some forms of illegal and harmful content.
The Online Safety Bill is the vehicle to give victims the power to seek prosecution and hold perpetrators to account for their actions. That has been backed by the draft Bill Committee, and by the Law Commission’s recommendations. I was delighted at the end of last year when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when questioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), agreed that cyber-flashing should be a criminal offence. That was later echoed by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. We are on the right track, but I press the Minister to go as far as she can, and to say when we can see more detail of the Online Safety Bill.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for all that she is doing. As we know that most cyber-flashing is sent from anonymous accounts, making it scarier, particularly when the perpetrator might be in the same vicinity as the victim, does my hon. Friend agree that tackling anonymity online and anonymous abuse is a key part of dealing with cyber-flashing, as is being able to track perpetrators?
Fay Jones
We are in danger of all agreeing with each other, which is a very good thing. I pay particular credit to my hon. Friend, who has done so much work on anonymity through her ten-minute rule Bill. That is crucial. Social media companies also have a huge role to play in this.
Going back to the point on consent, which I touched on earlier, I put on the record my thanks to Professor Clare McGlynn, who has been a leading figure in the campaign to legislate for a consent-based offence. It is critical that any new law is comprehensive, covering all forms of cyber-flashing, and therefore giving all victims the reassurance they need.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate; we all wait for the Minister’s response. She touched on the issue of a consent-based approach. That touches on the core wrong, which is that it is a non-consensual sexual act. Does she join me in urging the Minister to look at what is happening in Texas, California, New York, Virginia and Wisconsin, all of which are adopting a consent-based approach when legislating for this offence?
Fay Jones
I agree with my right hon. Friend. Looking through the prism of consent empowers victims and lowers the threshold for people to take this forward. Consent is extremely important. The lawful consensual sharing of images between adults is fine and appropriate if it involves free choice, but it is important to recognise when that crosses the line, and that is through consent.
To my hon. Friend’s point, a consent-based offence covers all forms of cyber-flashing, regardless of the motives of the sender. Motive requirements create an unjustified hierarchy of abuses and victims, which does not reflect victims’ experiences. Technology companies, the media, politicians and employers all have a part to play in developing policies and practices to challenge everyday sexism, structural sexism and harmful sexual behaviours.
I want to point out the work that Bumble is doing. Bumble is a dating app on which women initiate the conversation, and its ethos is around protecting those who use the app. Not only does Bumble have a one-strike-and-out policy for people who are reported for lewd activity, but it has “private detector” technology that recognises and blurs explicit images, and offers recipients the chance to view the images or block the senders. That is industry-leading technology, and I commend those at Bumble for taking that approach. They have been involved in other initiatives around the world, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said.
I had best draw my remarks to a close because I know that we all want to hear from the Minister. It is imperative that we criminalise cyber-flashing in England and Wales as soon as possible. Every day without an offence in place means that victims are denied an effective route to justice. Let us lead the way by continuing the progress that the Government have already made, and make cyber-flashing illegal once and for all.
The Minister of State, Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray? Thank you for your munificence in holding on until I raced my way here this afternoon.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) for securing the debate and for all her work on this vital issue since entering Parliament. Looking at my right hon. and hon. Friends across the Chamber, I genuinely see a group of very, very committed female parliamentarians who are doing everything that they can from the Back Benches to ensure that women and girls are protected in our society. I will try to reference them in my response.
I reiterate the horror set out by my hon. Friend in some of the experiences that we know about through campaigning organisations such as Brook. Women travelling on public transport or just going about their day-to-day lives can have such images thrust upon them and inserted into their lives without any consent.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) raised the absolutely valid point of consent. Indeed, she has been doing really groundbreaking work in highlighting the threat of deep fake pornography. Sadly, I think that we are only just beginning to see the potential and pernicious effect of that form of pornography. My right hon. Friend is very much leading the campaigning and raising awareness of those new ways in which criminals and others are using the internet.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire quoted the Prime Minister’s response to a question about cyber-flashing from my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) during a sitting of the Liaison Committee. He said:
“I don’t care whether flashing is cyber or not, it should be illegal.”
In his own inimitable way, he has set out the Government’s approach to cyber-flashing. We absolutely support the development of such an offence, and we are carefully considering an offence along the lines of that proposed by the Law Commission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire asked whether the Online Safety Bill might be the vehicle through which that law was brought about. We are actively looking at that, but we very much understand the need for speed and, indeed, the wish of women and girls around the country for the issue to be dealt with quickly and effectively.
As my hon. Friend set out, criminal offences that may serve to deal with such situations already exist, and she listed a few of them. We recognise, however, the potential problems that may limit the application of some of those offences. In our discussions, the police and Crown Prosecution Service raised the practical difficulties of using section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, for example, because that particular offence requires that the genitals exposed are those of the offender. That may of course be very difficult to prove. In a situation where a woman received such a photograph on a crowded bus or tube carriage, for example, it would be an almost impossible element to prove, by definition. As such, we understand that there is a need to change the law, and also to reflect on the impact that these images can have on women and girls going about their business day to day. They may be distressed, worried, humiliated or frightened. Imagine a 15-year-old girl getting a bus home from school on a dark winter’s night, and this image pops up on her phone. She will be worrying, I would imagine, about what will happen to her when she gets off that bus to make her journey home. We absolutely understand that.
That is why, as a result of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire and others, as well as wider concerns about the development of new technology and how it is being used by perpetrators to commit offences, we wanted to understand whether the law as it is has kept pace with modern behaviour. It is why we asked the Law Commission to review the law on harmful online communications, to ensure that if change is needed, we do so in the right way. It reported last year, and I am extremely grateful to the Law Commission for that report, which recommended, among other things, a new criminal offence relating to cyber-flashing.
It is worth noting—indeed, my hon. Friend, in her usual thorough manner, did exactly this—that the offence of cyber-flashing is increasing in prevalence. According to the British Transport police, there were 66 reports of cyber-flashing in 2019, compared with 34 in 2018 and just three in 2016. Of course, as campaigns such as that of my hon. Friend get more traction, we are very alive to the risk that we will hear of more instances, because women and girls will know that they are not the only ones suffering these incidents and will, I hope, have the confidence to report them to the police. Having commissioned the Law Commission review, we are now working to ensure that we can change the law to reflect the realities of life in the 21st century.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North, in her usual thorough and rightly pressing way, invited me to discuss the issue of public sexual harassment. Again, through the tackling violence against women and girls strategy, we have looked at that phenomenon, because we hear from campaigners that they believe that not just the nature but the frequency of such incidents has got worse and more prevalent over time. We keep under review the existing offences that are in place, but I know that my right hon. Friend will continue to be a strong advocate for a change to the law in this area.
Caroline Nokes
Will the Minister briefly reflect on the fact that it is not just campaigners, me and Members from across the House who are calling for a change in the law, but the Law Commission?
Victoria Atkins
Indeed. I was just about to say that my right hon. Friend has been joined by excellent company in the form of the Law Commission. She will, I am sure, appreciate that we are taking a little bit of time to consider this issue carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire spoke about the Online Safety Bill being the perfect vehicle for such a change in the law. As she would expect, we are working closely with our DCMS colleagues to explore the potential of that. Reference was made to the Women and Equalities Committee report that was published this week, and we invited the House to join us in drafting that Bill through pre-legislative scrutiny. My hon. Friend will know that a Joint Committee reviewed it very carefully and, of course, all of those considerations will be taken into account as DCMS takes the Bill forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) made the fair point that while the Government look to legislate in due course, there is nothing to prevent internet companies from acting now. We should absolutely encourage these tech companies to consider their own moral duties to the public. They do not need to wait for us to pass a law: they can do the right and decent thing to stop women and girls suffering this sort of behaviour.
I would like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire and every colleague who has joined us this afternoon that we are actively and carefully considering the Law Commission’s recommendation on cyber-flashing, and are looking to identify a legislative vehicle as we aim to introduce a new, specific offence to criminalise it.
Question put and agreed to.
Skin Conditions and Mental Health
(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
James Gray (in the Chair)
I remind Members that Mr Speaker has asked us to wear our masks if at all possible and to maintain social distancing where we can.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered skin conditions and mental health.
I want to start my speech by making a point that I will make at the very end: mind and skin are linked, and we have to take action on both if we are to break the vicious cycle of psychological harm. I suppose, really, I should declare an interest right at the beginning of this debate. It is not a financial interest but a personal interest: I have rosacea, which makes one’s face red and can ultimately deform it, and I take antibiotics every day. There are many more serious conditions—I do not make a great thing of it—but only today, in relation to something else I said on a completely different subject in the House of Commons, I have already received one email accusing me of being a red gammon head and a ruddy-faced buffoon.
I take it very lightly, because I know I am already old and ugly, but for young people this kind of personal abuse about their appearance is deeply upsetting and drives many people into deep psychological harm, because mental health and physical health are intrinsically linked. Knowledge of this link has driven recent advances in NHS service delivery and underpins much of the thinking in the long-term plan. Although that has led to the development of trailblazing and new services for many people with long-term conditions, for some reason people living with skin conditions continue to have dire access to psychological services. Indeed, in 2020 the all-party parliamentary group on skin, which I chair, published a report on the mental health issues faced by people living with skin conditions. It demonstrated that the psychological impact can be severe, in terms of the effect on people’s work, education and healthcare use. We should all worry about this, as 60% of us live with some form of skin condition.
Since the publication of the report, the developing impact of the covid pandemic has inevitably made a bad situation worse. One of my colleagues—who might speak in the debate—said that he was told by his GP only recently that he might have to wait a year for an appointment about a skin condition. With many patients with inflammatory skin diseases now experiencing a 12-month wait for a first appointment with a dermatologist, the stress and anxiety experienced by many individuals has risen significantly. I therefore want to spend this debate outlining the need for commissioners and health leaders to rethink how the NHS provides psychological care for people living with a skin condition.
The APPG’s report on the mental health associated with skin conditions is available on the group’s web pages. The report was based in part on a survey conducted by dermatologists and psychologists of 500 skin patients, with evidence also collected from 100 clinicians and 16 dermatology-related charities. The report was led by experts from the British Association of Dermatologists. The survey part of the report found that 98% of skin disease patients felt that their condition affected their emotional and psychological wellbeing; yet astonishingly, all the patient representative and professional organisations providing evidence stated that the NHS mental health provision for skin was “poor” or “very poor”. In addition, over half the patients surveyed did not even realise that they could ask for help with managing the mental health impact of their skin disease. That clearly demonstrates just how under-resourced services are in this part of the NHS.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to some other worrying findings that our research for the report highlighted: 93% of patients surveyed said that their skin condition had a negative impact on their self-esteem; 83% said their skin condition negatively impacted on their sleep; 73% said their skin condition negatively impacted on their intimate relationships; and 5% said that they had contemplated suicide. Sadly, I have been informed by healthcare professionals working in our NHS dermatology services that patients living with skin conditions are at increased risk of self-harm, as we well know, and that a number of them, sadly, go on to take their own lives.
There is also a great economic impact, with the double whammy of skin disease and the psychological burden associated with it. Some patients surveyed said that their skin disease had been so distressing that they had felt they had to give up their job. Let me read a brief excerpt from a quote in the report:
“When I turned 19 it [the eczema] became so bad that I couldn’t participate in normal life anymore due to the pain…I had to give up my job as I am always too unwell.”
Of course, our skin is implicated in everything we do and it is often not understood that skin conditions affect not just the individual living with them but their wider family. As for the impact on intimate relationships, let me read out another quote from the report:
“My skin is often too painful to have intimate relations with or to even to hug or kiss my partner. I had to postpone my wedding as I can’t cope with the idea of a flare up on my wedding day.”
Recent research and evidence suggests that parenting a child with a chronic skin condition can trigger parental stress, and the all-party group’s survey also included responses from some children. Every one of the children surveyed indicated that their skin condition had negatively affected their mental wellbeing, with the vast majority reporting that it had impacted on their performance at school. One of the children is quoted in the report as saying:
“I was so depressed. I felt like I was rotting away inside an alien growth on my face. I didn’t wanna exist like that. I wanted to chop my own head off.”
All this emotional turmoil was experienced by a child living with cystic acne. Clearly, if we do not support such children, the distress that they experience in relation to their condition may have a long-term impact on their future wellbeing.
There are some good services out there. The report highlighted a few trailblazers, such as the specialist IAPT —improving access to psychological therapies—service in Sheffield and the well-established psycho-dermatology services in some London hospitals. Psychological interventions are also being tested, and approaches involving cognitive behavioural therapy, merged with mindfulness and self-compassion, are showing great promise.
Nevertheless, our report demonstrates that there is very much a postcode lottery, with many hospital dermatology services not having access to psychological services or clear pathways to refer people at risk to the support they need. Alarmingly, less than 5% of dermatology clinics across the UK are providing any level of specialist mental health support for children and young people. And believe it or not, but in Wales there are no dedicated psychological clinics, and there are certainly none in Lincolnshire. Only a very small minority of trusts have such clinics.
This is a ludicrous situation. Research shows that psychodermatology clinics are more cost-effective to run, compared with managing skin patients with psychological distress in more generalist healthcare settings. Therefore, I urge the Minister to consider how funding is allocated and spent in this area. Covid has made things worse for dermatology patients, with poorer access to face-to-face consultations further preventing assessment and identification of mental health issues.
It is not just our report that stresses the need to embed in dermatology services psychological screening and access to psychological intervention. That is also a feature of most of the recent treatment guidelines that have emerged from reviews of the academic literature and consultation with experts. For example, the recent guidelines of the British Association of Dermatologists on the treatment of the depigmenting skin condition vitiligo make it clear that access to psychological support should be available.
Furthermore, while some conditions might be primarily psychological in nature, they pretty much always present in dermatology services. For instance, skin-specific delusional conditions and medically unexplained itch disorders can be devastating, and without clear access to psychological services, such patients can be put at considerable risk of having their underlying condition go untreated. Again, recent British Association of Dermatology guidelines in this area of practice make it clear that services need to be developed to meet the needs of this specific group of patients. However, investment has not been forthcoming.
As I draw to the end of this speech, let me share another disappointing fact with the House. The all-party parliamentary group has looked into the mental health of skin patients and service provision on two prior occasions, in 2003 and 2013. Our most recent report shows that, despite a general recognition of the need for better care in this area—and leaving aside the more recent impact of the pandemic—most of the recommendations of the previous reports have, I am afraid, not been acted on by Government. That seems to ne to be an indictment of those responsible for the planning and commissioning of these essential services.
What should we do? We can start by building parity of esteem between dermatology services and other long-term conditions, both in access to specialist dermatologist care—which would of itself reduce the psychological impact—and in access to psychological services.
In order to achieve that, our report makes a number of recommendations. All NHS dermatology units must have regional access to psychodermatology services, with clear pathways for patients to be referred to for appropriate psychological intervention or support. There must be a stepped care pathway that starts with good quality screening and enables patients to speedily access the most economic and effective psychological services that they require and deserve. This is already in place for many other long-term health conditions, such as diabetes, but not for skin conditions. This cannot remain the case; it is simply not good enough.
To achieve that, we need to increase staffing in dermatology services and improve the dermatology and psychological training of all NHS staff who have regular contact with patients with skin conditions. That includes training for trainees, primary care clinicians and secondary care specialists.
Research funding for psychodermatology should be prioritised. It should focus on the development, evaluation and implementation of a range of psychological and educational interventions for patients with skin conditions. The inclusion of patient support organisations in service development is critical to amplify the patient voice and to ensure that patients have clear access to some of the excellent services available in the community. NHS mental health funding provided to local commissioners must urgently be used to invest in and improve mental health services.
In conclusion, I commend our report on mental health and skin disease, which demonstrates the alarming lack of psychological support available to people living with a skin condition. It provides national policy makers, commissioners and local service providers with an expert consensus on how mental health support for people with a skin condition should be structured in a range of clinical settings. This can be delivered cost-effectively.
The report also outlines the urgent clinical need for healthcare professionals to be equipped with the necessary skills and resources to provide the holistic care that patients need. This must include patient assessments and care that treats the mind and skin together; otherwise, we will not break the vicious cycle whereby problems create psychological problems that in turn exacerbate the skin condition. We ultimately hope that through the publication of this report and debate, the need for action will be made clear to policy makers and service commissioners working in Government and the NHS. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for calling me in this debate, Mr Gray. I also thank the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for bringing this issue to the Floor of the House.
I want to raise the case of one of my constituents who experienced topical steroid withdrawal and the side effects of that as a result of the treatment she received for her eczema. I very much concur with the conclusions of the right hon. Member for Gainsborough on the steps that now need to be taken, not least in instituting mental health support in the care pathway.
Having been prescribed topical corticosteroid medicines over a long time, my constituent experienced a very severe reaction upon withdrawal that caused far worse symptoms than those her eczema preparations were intended to treat. The nerve pain was unbearable and inescapable; the skin split and bled; it was sore and painful. The oedema impacted on her care and was debilitating in itself. Those symptoms, exacerbated by the insomnia she experienced and by not going out—being housebound—therefore had a massive toll on her mental health.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Commission on Human Medicines have reviewed the impact of withdrawal and the over-prescribing of those preparations, which they often are because people need to treat their skin condition continually. As a result of an investigation under the yellow card system, they identified how poorly managed the condition is and how little known.
It comes back to the need for education around dermatology. At each GP practice, there should be a doctor who not only specialises in dermatology but has a good understanding of topical steroid withdrawal, who can therefore manage the pathway of patients. Patients should regularly see their GP for a review of the application of their medicine. It is even harder to trace what happens because there is no coding for this condition. We need to see coding to help to trace exactly what is happening. However, without proper research and investment in research into dermatological conditions, alternative preparations for the treatment of skin conditions are not being advanced at the pace that they should.
The debilitating process that my constituent suffered over not just days and weeks but months and years had a massive impact on her mental health. Depression is one of the side effects listed for these preparations. However, there is no point listing such conditions in the small print; we need to ensure that those side effects do not happen in the first place. We therefore need to ensure a proper review process within the education given to patients and the availability of other services.
That is why I support IAPT—improving access to psychological therapies—services being made available to people undergoing this treatment so that they can get the support they need. It is also worth noting that 81% of the people who experience topical steroid withdrawal are women; I notice that imbalance across healthcare and I will raise it every time. We continually fail on women’s health, and that needs to be looked at specifically.
Finally, I would like to say that there is good support from charitable organisations. Globally, the International Topical Steroid Awareness Network is looking at this issue, as well as Scratch That—I know it is quite a name for a charity—which does fantastic work supporting people and building a network, particularly to help people with their mental health issues. It suggests that it can advance support by building a community, but also by giving people hope. People with a debilitating illness often particularly need hope. I trust that a proper pathway for people with TSW—but, more importantly, prevention—will be developed.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I want to talk about mental health support for those with skin conditions, which is something that is often forgotten about by health providers across the UK and beyond. That is surprising, because 60% of British people currently suffer or have suffered from skin conditions at some point in their life. Those figures are comparable with cancer—it is a much bigger problem than we recognise. Some 98% of skin disease patients currently report that their condition affects their emotional and psychological wellbeing, yet only 18% have received any form of psychological support. That is a dichotomy that I want to explore very briefly—notwithstanding my sore voice, for which I am very sorry.
A key reason why support for these conditions is so important is that recent studies have proven that there has been an increase in psychological distress, and in the last two years in particular. That applies in particular to adults over 18 and children aged between six and 16. For over-18-year-olds, there has been an increase of distress from 20.8% in 2019 to 24.4% in March 2021. That in my view is a reflection of the pandemic, from which we have all suffered.
A study of adults over 18 also found that 26.1% of respondents reported self-harm thoughts at least once between March 2020 and May 2021. That is a hidden danger that we must all be aware of. It is even worse for those who are a bit younger. Among children aged six to 16, 39.2% have experienced some kind of deterioration in mental health since 2017—no doubt as a result of schools being closed and the isolation we all suffered from during the pandemic. For me, this debate is about the hidden dangers of the pandemic and the mental health cost on individuals.
That is made worse as young people emerge from the pandemic and their hibernation. How do they look? How do they feel? How low or high is their confidence? What about not having been in the sun for the last couple of years for those living in high-rise blocks in London and inner cities? What about skin conditions, such as acne? What about not going to school at that key age as a teenager? What about the lack of confidence that comes from having a skin condition? I want to raise these questions today. We can easily acknowledge the problem, but the solution is much more difficult.
Having discussed mental health, I want to move on to dermatology. The number of eczema sufferers in the UK has been steadily rising for the last 10 years. It stands currently at 1.3 million people. Interestingly, eczema is diagnosed much earlier. In around 90% of cases, it is children below the age of five. Psoriasis is much more of a problem for people that are slightly older. The prevalence of psoriasis in the UK today is a similar figure, at about 1 million to 1.3 million people. I am very familiar with it myself. Psoriasis is a problem that can affect how people look, and it is just one of many skin conditions, as we heard earlier from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). It is part of the whole panoply of skin issues that affect people so badly.
So what can we do? I want to raise three key points with the Minister. We need to improve the support for all those with skin conditions. We need to focus on the link between dermatology and mental health. First, I want to call on the Government to review their spending on dermatology to enable clinics to provide specialist mental health support for children and young people who suffer from skin problems. As we heard earlier, that may break the link between skin issues and mental health, which people are increasingly suffering from.
Secondly, we should ensure that, whenever possible, face-to-face appointments are available to those who need them. That is really important. It is about human contact and touch. A Zoom call with a doctor is fine, if people can get an appointment, but it does not recognise the problem. The doctor cannot see it nor feel it. That, for me, is very important.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is giving an excellent speech. I, too, pay tribute the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). This is such an important issue. I have been contacted by a constituent of mine called Margaret who is a lifelong sufferer of psoriasis. To judge from his opening speech, I think that much of what she said in her email to me would be very familiar to the right hon. Member for Gainsborough. Does the hon. Member for Bracknell agree with me about the importance of first contact with the doctor and how important it is that sufferers of all kinds of skin conditions can feel confident about reaching out to their doctor? As the hon. Gentleman says, face-to-face contact is so important. I also want to emphasise to anyone, anywhere, who might be suffering from a skin condition that help is available and they should not hesitate to seek it.
James Sunderland
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; I could not agree more. The simple answer is that doctors cannot see anything on a Zoom call. Also, people need to be able to see a doctor to get a prescription. If someone has a skin condition, they cannot just go to the chemist to get a prescription. They have to get an appointment first in order to get the prescription, and that is where face-to-face appointments come into it.
My third point is that we need to increase the range of psychological support for all those who need it. That is part of the panoply of health support that we need. A 2014 study showed that 94% of the patients who had completed psychodermatology treatment reported reduced stress, 92% reported increased confidence, and 90% reported that their skin condition was better understood. Wow. Those figures are amazing, but if someone asks for that treatment at this point in time, it takes up to a year for a referral, which is worrying.
I want to commend the excellent services locally in my constituency. The Frimley integrated care system is one of the best in the country, if not the best. The treatment that I have had personally has been pretty good, notwithstanding the delay that we are all suffering form. Lastly, I ask the Minister to reinvest accordingly in this very important area so that young people and adults are not suffering.
James Gray (in the Chair)
This debate can continue until 6.07 pm. However, the House will know that there is very probably a vote at 6 pm. Coming back for five minutes seems odd, so it would be helpful if we can conclude by 6 pm. We have three further Back-Bench speeches and 15 minutes to conclude them in, so four or five minutes each will be helpful.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) on securing this debate.
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing, I am deeply concerned about the impact on mental health of having a visible difference, particularly for our children and young people growing up in a world where body image seems to become so significant, with the explosion of social media platforms. Living with a skin condition or any form of disfigurement impacts on an individual’s everyday life. At best, they might have to put up with strangers staring or pointing fingers, but for many it is a steady stream of teasing, harassment or bullying, which has a detrimental effect on self-esteem and subsequently on psychological wellbeing.
Almost one in five people across the UK self-identify as having a visible difference—a mark, a scar or a skin condition. We know that at least 1.3 million people are living with a significant disfigurement, which includes 569,000 with facial disfigurements. Although many dermatological clinics can provide support and advice on the physical challenges and treatments, fewer than 5% of them offer any level of specialist mental health support for young people.
I have talked before in this place about the fantastic charity Changing Faces, which provides unique and life-changing counselling and emotional and psychological wellbeing support for those with visible differences and their families. It does an amazing job and relies on voluntary funding and grants that stretch only so far, which means that it can reach only a tiny percentage of the people who need its help. Its mission is to challenge prejudice and discrimination and to change attitudes towards people living with skin conditions and scarring. Its “Pledge to be seen” campaign was launched to ensure that people with a visible difference that affects their appearance are seen and heard across mainstream culture and in workplaces.
I was absolutely delighted last year when the Welsh Government signed the pledge and became the first UK public body to make the commitment to represent and support those with skin conditions or disfigurements. I certainly encourage businesses and brands to do the same and to help to make society more inclusive. Research carried out by Changing Faces showed that people with visible differences are often vulnerable to isolation, loneliness and social anxiety, which is something we would have seen intensify over the last two years of covid.
As we start to emerge from the pandemic, our NHS services across all areas are stretched to full, beyond capacity, and we risk a looming mental health crisis. Something has to be done to tackle the growing gap in specialist mental health support for people with skin conditions. These people are not different; they simply have a visible difference. By seeing them represented in job adverts, brand marketing and campaigns, we will start to reduce the stigma, and I hope, in turn, some of the ridicule and bullying that they currently encounter.
I encourage colleagues from across the House to promote the “Pledge to be seen” campaign, and ask the Government to follow the lead of the Welsh Government by signing the pledge themselves. We all acknowledge the need for better mental health care, but alongside that it is up to us to demonstrate our commitment to reducing intolerance and prejudice, and to promoting opportunity and inclusivity.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I pay tribute to the APPG, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for securing this important debate. I will try to keep my comments brief, but the challenge is that there is so much to talk about.
I, like the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), pay tribute to Changing Faces, which has done incredible work to promote the cause of those with visible difference, who too often in our lives face discrimination and bullying. We know that 55% of young people will be bullied about their appearance. With the skin the largest organ of the body, it is almost inevitable that those who have a visible difference, such as eczema, cystic acne, scars or burns, will face some horrendous bullying at school—the sort of bullying that means that they do not take part in the ordinary activities that other children do. When I say “ordinary activities”, I mean that they do not want to take part in PE or put their hand up in class in case attention is drawn to them. Is it any surprise that children who have conditions that require medical treatment also need psychological help to overcome all of that?
I pay particular tribute to the most amazing man in Southampton, Professor Keith Godfrey—a dermatologist at Southampton General Hospital who runs the paediatric dermatology service.
Nobody likes talking about acne. I have been in this Chamber when I have heard Members say to me, “Nobody died of a few spots.” But actually, we heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough highlight acts of self-harm in young people who feel so bullied and pressured because of the state of their skin that they do not leave their bedrooms and do not want to take part in school activities. Tragically, some do take their lives; they lose their lives because of “a few spots”. That is why it is so important that they are given the psychological help they need to get through their conditions.
Sometimes this is terribly controversial and upsets people, but I want to pay particular attention to the drug Roaccutane, which in itself can cause low mood. It is therefore important that young people who are prescribed it get the support they need when under prescription. We are terribly good at ensuring that young girls who are taking that drug go on the pregnancy prevention programme, but terribly bad at ensuring that the young men who take it get the support they need to get through low mood swings and the depression that some—I am quick to emphasise, not all—feel.
The Women and Equalities Committee last year conducted our inquiry into body image and the pressures that young people face. Of the evidence that we took, particularly from witnesses put forward by Changing Faces, two stick out in my mind. Tatyana, who was a burns victim when she was a very small child—she was at primary school when she was disfigured—gave us the most incredible evidence, in which she spoke about the importance of being open and talking about her skin condition.
Tatyana also spoke about the importance of role models. Pretty much everybody we see on social media today—those influencers of young people—is seen through a filter, so they look perfect at all times, yet young people look in the mirror and do not see that same perfection. Tatyana drew attention to Katie Piper, who she said was the only person she saw in public with visible burns who she could hold up as a role model. She said that she talks about it because she wants that young boy or young girl in their bedroom to see somebody who looks like them who is prepared to speak up publicly and ensure that other people have the courage to take part in everyday life.
I conclude with a plea from Changing Faces, which provides a brilliant, charity-run service that includes its skin camouflage clinic and one-to-one counselling support. Changing Faces would love to work with the Government. My plea to the Minister is: please, go and talk to the people there, listen to the lessons that they have learnt and the support that they can give, and work out how we can bring them into the NHS and help clinical commissioning to ensure that the psychological support is available for those who need it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) on securing this debate. I want to focus on that issue of major importance to which he referred: mental health. As my party’s health spokesperson, I am keen that these issues are addressed. Skin is always completely visual. For young people in particular, looks can seem like the most important thing, which is why it is crucial that we recognise skin conditions that are normal and those that are not. We have 4,000 skin cancer deaths annually in the UK.
The reason I am interested in this subject is that my second son was born with psoriasis. He had to have cream three times a day. The doctor told us that although he would grow out of the psoriasis—and he did—he would then develop asthma. He did develop asthma, but he is now married to Ashleigh, and they have two boys, Austin and Max—life has changed for him. I remember that when he was at school it was terrible for him; all over his skin was a rash. My wife was the person who looked after him, but that is what happened.
In Northern Ireland, in my constituency alone, we have 2,713 people who suffer from inflammatory skin disease. It is really important that the issues are taken onboard. Some 4,351 people develop skin cancer each year, and around 300 of those cases involve malignant melanomas. It is crucial that there is special psychological care to deal with the impact of skin problems, to help people to cope and to ensure that the condition does not worsen. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough referred to the fact that 18% of people suffering with skin conditions have received some form of psychological support—that is really important. They have to learn how to live with it, as well as learning how to deal with it. As I have said before, young people are growing up in a world where looks seem like everything, and we must do more for them.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) on securing this debate on such an important matter, and for informing us all so much through his excellent contribution. Millions of people across Scotland and the UK suffer from skin conditions, which can have a devastating impact on a person’s mental health. The skin is the most noticeable part of our body that could be impacted by psychological factors, yet very few psychologists are researching it. It is classic health psychology, just in a different area. It may seem purely aesthetic to the unaffected, yet the impact goes much deeper, as we have heard.
Skin conditions can be extremely distressing. They can affect all aspects of people’s lives, from schooling, relationships, self-esteem and career prospects to social and leisure activities. Unlike hypertension, diabetes or other health problems, skin problems are usually obvious to any onlookers. That can lead to feelings of isolation, embarrassment, depression or anxiety. People may have psychological reactions that seem out of proportion to their actual skin complaint. Around a quarter of the UK population consult a GP every year for a skin complaint, the most common being for stress caused by the complaint. Despair and other psychological issues can exacerbate the skin problem, creating a vicious spiral.
Acne, psoriasis, eczema and hives are just a few of the dermatological conditions that have been scientifically proven to be exacerbated by stress. Psychodermatology treatment is becoming more accepted among dermatologists, and psychologists are becoming more involved in assisting dermatology patients. Dermatologists and other skin experts are still researching the role of stress and other psychological factors on skin conditions. They are also working on therapies to help dermatology patients deal with the mental health difficulties associated with their conditions.
We heard the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) speak about her constituent’s issue, as well as about women’s health more broadly. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) spoke about the number of people impacted by mental health issues compounded by their skin condition, such as eczema or psoriasis. Despite all that, there is still a gap in services available for people experiencing distress. A report released in September 2020 by the all-party parliamentary group on skin, undertook some fantastic research and found that many primary healthcare professionals lacked access to dermatological training—even fewer are trained to support patients with the psychological effects of these conditions. We may miss critical signs of distress if primary healthcare providers lack the expertise to conduct a psychological evaluation.
According to the British Skin Foundation, 70% of people across the UK have noticeable skin disorders or scarring that will lower their self-esteem. For example, psoriasis is an illness that primarily affects the skin, and occasionally the joints through psoriatic arthritis. It presently affects between 2% and 3% of the UK population, which is over 2 million people. Psoriasis can have a significant and sometimes catastrophic psychological impact, causing anxiety and depression. Despite that, there is a lack of resources to help persons with inflammatory skin feel less stigmatised. I am myself a psoriasis sufferer, and fully understand the implications of the condition and the effect it can have on a person’s self-confidence. I developed psoriasis in my teens: it is a genetic, hereditary disease, passed on to me from my mother. In fact, my granddad, my mum, my auntie Anne, and now myself have all been long-term sufferers.
The damage that this condition can cause does not simply arise from the impacts on a person’s skin, many though they can be. I am maybe fortunate that my psoriasis manifests mainly on my scalp and head: I often jest that as long as I keep hold of my hair, I should be okay. However, I have also seen first hand the impacts of severe and extreme breakouts resulting in hospitalisation, and have touched on the stress and anxiety of sufferers, none more so—in my opinion—than that of the parent watching their child growing, hoping against hope that they will not have unwillingly passed their condition on to their children. My 13-year-old has so far been unaffected, but that seems to be by the grace of God.
I put on record my thanks to NHS Scotland for its continued work in this field, which has been made possible by the Scottish Government boosting mental health spending by over 65% in the past year alone. I am sure that Members will agree that the mental health consequences of skin diseases are vast, and that as a morally responsible society, we must do more to combat those effects.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I commend the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) both on having secured this debate and on his ongoing work in, and commitment to, this area. He introduced his comments by saying that yet again, he had had more ridicule through an email, which is appalling. He stands up for people, and I am sure that that is well appreciated by fellow sufferers.
The APPG’s report is very powerful. It is very sobering that, despite similar reports in 2003 and 2013, so little has changed for people suffering from these conditions, both from childhood and among adults and people who are older. The link between skin conditions and deterioration of emotional and psychological wellbeing are well documented, and have been for some time. As we have heard said so eloquently this afternoon, people with skin conditions report that they have experienced social isolation, stigmatism, depression, anxiety and in some cases suicidal thoughts and, indeed, action. There is also strong evidence to suggest that, although people with skin conditions have much higher rates of common mental health conditions, they struggle to access psychological support. Members have given some very good examples from among their constituents. This is particularly prevalent in children, as the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) discussed. The APPG’s survey found 98% of respondents stating that their condition impacts their mental health, and only 18% saying that they could access support.
The rise of social media has exacerbated these problems. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) has said, children and young people with these conditions are particularly reporting bullying and being mocked on social media, all of which we obviously condemn. We cannot disagree with all the evidence that has been presented today—the reports and recommendations on what is needed to support people. It is very clear, Minister: we need to improve access to specialist support, improve training and awareness through the health service, commission more psychodermatology services, improve staffing, support further research, and encourage further integration between psychology, psychiatry and dermatology. The Government need to do much more to support these people, particularly those who are battling through the primary and secondary care interface—I am particularly thinking about parents who are trying to do so. The IAPT service, with which I have worked in my previous career with the health service, offers a route through. However, as all of us know from our constituencies, IAPT is heavily over-subscribed and really struggling with current caseloads.
In the final few moments of my speech, I will pick up on the issue of teledermatology. Although people over the past 20 years might not have experienced much difference in services, the world has changed quite considerably in those 20 years. A decade ago, I was a commissioner for a primary care trust—now they are CCGs—of a teledermatology service, encouraging GPs to use that service as a way of supporting them, providing better link-in to secondary specialist care, and ultimately providing a better, quicker, more responsive service to local people, particularly for parents who can sit with children and avoid trips into hospital. It was clinically led, working with the private sector, new technology and willing GPs, and it was innovative. It was incredibly hard to achieve: at some point, I may share my stories of trying to implement a new service in the NHS. It is not easy, because new practice is always hard to achieve and savings and effectiveness are hard to demonstrate.
Although as we have heard, covid has made the situation much worse for many people, the pandemic has provided a catalyst for some rethinking of how we deliver services. Though I heed the warning in the report —also made by hon. Members today—about the loss of face-to-face services and about how important those are, I think that we can learn some lessons. With waiting lists at 6 million people and rising rapidly, I wonder how the Government will make developments in this area, as well as in many others, without thinking about more radical approaches, while clearly bringing people with them. Technology and digital access provide some of the solutions.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. Given the clarity of the evidence, will she outline how she would support embedding innovation and the lessons of the pandemic to create a more responsive, faster and better service? Will she outline how she will work with her counterparts in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to deal with online bullying about skin conditions, which we have also talked about today? It would be helpful to understand the Government’s strategy on employing and training more psychodermatologists and, indeed, how the Minister will support GP training so that GPs understand the effect on people’s mental health of skin conditions, again as has been so eloquently outlined over the past two decades.
What plans does the Department have to invest in further research into psychodermatology and the wider mental health implications of skin-related diseases, as the right hon. Member for Gainsborough mentioned? I sincerely hope that we are not all here in another decade’s time, with another report from the APPG saying the same things. I am sure that we would all like to see some progress for people suffering from the mental trauma of their poor skin conditions.
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
I add my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for securing the debate. The subject is clearly important to many people in the House and to many people across the country who have skin conditions and are concerned about their mental health. I also thank my right hon. Friend for championing this cause for so many years. I am relatively new to my role, but I look forward to working with him. I thank him for sharing his story, which I am sure will have given a great deal of comfort, as well as having resonance in this debate. It is real that people suffer bullying. I was very interested to hear about Changing Faces, the visible signs and the pledge, and I am happy to hear more from the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris).
Skin conditions, such as acne, psoriasis—we heard the personal story about psoriasis of the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar)—the rosacea we heard about from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and eczema can be complex and affect people of all ages. Many young people are affected by acne and one in 50 of us will develop psoriasis. Eczema is also very common, affecting one in five children, including me when I was younger. It can also start later in life.
Some of those conditions can be relatively minor, as in my case, and will clear up over time, but others are much more serious, causing pain and scarring and being for the long term, perhaps lifelong. Clearly, that can and will have a negative impact on a person’s life, often causing stigma, discrimination and bullying. It can seriously affect their self-confidence, self-esteem and overall mental health. I understand that. I assure the Chamber that the Government are committed to supporting people with all dermatological conditions.
I note the report on “Mental Health and Skin Disease” by the all-party parliamentary group. I will be happy to attend the group on occasion. I acknowledge that the need for specialist mental health support for people suffering with often debilitating long-term skin conditions was raised as a particular issue, as has been discussed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough stated, the mental health issues faced by people living with skin conditions can be severe, in particular when people are not getting the treatment they need—or waiting for more than a year, as he outlined. Obviously, the longer someone waits, the worse the condition often gets. I reassure my right hon. Friend that mental health and ensuring that people get the treatment that they need will continue to be a priority for the Government.
We are committed to achieving parity between mental and physical health services, and to reducing mental health disparities. We know that we are not there yet, but we are committed to that. We are making good progress, however, with investment in NHS mental health services continuing to increase each year from almost £11 billion in 2015-18 to more than £14 billion in 2020-21. We are investing at least £2.3 billion of extra funding a year in expanding and transforming our mental health services by 2023-24.
Some people with dermatological conditions will be on a long-term condition pathway, due to the nature of their illness, such as cancer, including skin cancer. In these cases, the team responsible for the patient’s physical health should discuss and review the patient’s emotional and psychological status regularly and support them, through access to information and services for their mental health if needed.
Commissioners are encouraged to ensure that local pathways include assessment and ongoing support of patients’ mental and psychological wellbeing and cognitive status. They should also ensure that health practitioners have ongoing training—a number of Members mentioned that—to understand the emotional, cognitive and psychological needs of patients. We have continued to expand our flagship talking therapies programme—a number of hon. Members welcomed that. The improving access to psychological therapies—IAPT—programme for all adults with common mental health problems has been accessed by more than 1 million people in 2020 and 2021. We have expanded the programme to help people with their mental health and long-term conditions, including dermatological conditions.
A person’s mental and physical health are intrinsically linked—they are in one place, in one person. People with long-term physical health conditions, such as dermatological ones, may also need emotional and psychological support. Conversely, two thirds of people with anxiety and depression have a long-term physical health problem—the two go hand in hand. Integrating psychological therapies with physical health services can provide better support to this group of people and achieve better outcomes. That is something we discuss regularly when talking about integration and the new integrated care systems, as one of the benefits of taking that approach. It is also why we have expanded our IAPT programme to include an integrated approach for people with mental health as well as long-term conditions.
All clinical commissioning groups are expected to commission IAPT services, integrated into physical care pathways, as part of their IAPT expansion plans locally. That should bring together mental and physical health providers so they can work in a co-ordinated way to achieve the best outcomes for all people irrespective of their diagnosis. While there is some excellent practice of services offering talking therapies for people with dermatological conditions, such as those in Southampton mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), I acknowledge that that may not be the case in every area, but IAPT services are continuing to grow and develop all over the country.
I would like to take the opportunity to remind people that IAPT services are accessible to all adults in England. I fear there is low awareness of the understanding that people can self-refer to IAPT. They do not have to wait for a GP, although that is one route, and can self-refer to IAPT. We have also launched a “Help!” campaign, accompanied by The Beatles music, which is raising awareness so people know they can access those services. They can be referred by a range of practitioners in the community or by primary care, but they can also refer themselves. They will receive a person-centred assessment that covers the person’s mental health problems and acknowledges the impact of their long-term condition. Clear pathways and processes should be in place to enable a person to progress between those services and existing pathways.
As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), I acknowledge the impact of the covid pandemic and the excellent work going on in mental health services to respond to the pandemic. The past two years have been really tough. There has been a lot of innovation, as the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) said. We need to take that innovation and embed it in the services. There has been unprecedented demand on mental health; it was growing anyway, but the pandemic has accelerated demand. They are doing their utmost to make sure that services are there for everyone who needs them—for patients and our NHS colleagues who have been on the frontline— but services have been strained and it is harder for people to get an appointment at times. That is why, in addition to our long-term plan commitments, as part of the Government’s commitment to build back better, we have published our mental health recovery action plan, backed by an additional £500 million for this financial year, to ensure we have the right support in place and that we embed that innovation to access more people.
The plan aims to respond to the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of the public, specifically targeting groups who have most been affected—young people and children, clearly, are in that group. That investment and expansion of mental health services will help to address the needs of those people with long-term conditions, as well as other people in need of support. To deliver on our commitments, we need to ensure we have the workforce available. That is important but it takes time to deliver and that impedes our progress. It is vital that we have the right skilled workforce in place; we have improved that and we will continue to improve it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered skin conditions and mental health.
Written Statements
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Government Cyber Security Strategy
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Steve Barclay)
Further to my statement to the House on Wednesday 15 December on the National Cyber Strategy (HCWS484), I am pleased to announce the publication of the Government Cyber Security Strategy. This will deliver on the public sector resilience aspects of the national strategy which is critical to realising our ambitions as a cyber power.
Government have made significant progress in the last five years. The introduction of the minimum cyber-security standards for Government in 2018, and the underpinning annual “health check”, signalled clear requirements for cyber-security controls and behaviours and improved Government’s understanding of their cyber-security posture. Yet, while Government’s recognition and understanding of cyber-security risk has evolved, it has also highlighted the gap between where Government cyber resilience is now and where it needs to be.
As such, the Government Cyber Security Strategy sets out the vision that core Government functions are resilient to cyber-attack, strengthening the UK as a sovereign nation and cementing its authority as a democratic and responsible cyber power. The measurable aim is for these critical functions to be significantly hardened to cyber- attack by 2025, with all Government organisations across the whole public sector being resilient to known vulnerabilities and attack methods no later than 2030.
A copy of the Government Cyber Security Strategy will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS558]
Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme Levy
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)
The Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (Levy) Regulations 2014 require active employers’ liability insurers to pay an annual levy, based on their relative market share, for the purpose of meeting the costs of the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (DMPS). This is in line with the insurance industry’s commitment to fund a scheme of last resort for persons diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma who have been unable to trace their employer or their employer’s insurer.
Today I can announce that the total amount of the levy to be charged for 2021-22, the eighth year of the DMPS, is £22.0 million. The amount will be payable by active insurers by the end of March 2022.
Individual active insurers will be notified in writing of their share of the levy, together with how the amount was calculated and the payment arrangements. Insurers should be aware that it is a legal requirement to pay the levy within the set timescales.
I am pleased that the DMPS has seen seven successful years of operation, assisting many hundreds of people who have been diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma. The seventh annual report for the scheme, along with the annual statistics were published on 29 November 2021 and is available on the www.gov.uk website. I hope that Members of both Houses will welcome this announcement and give the DMPS their continued support.
[HCWS557]
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 (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others and to wear a face covering when not speaking. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
That the Grand Committee do consider the Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, the draft Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, were laid before the House on 23 November. I hardly need to remind the Committee, given the number of noble Lords from Northern Ireland who have taken an interest over the years, that the flying of flags is a very sensitive and delicate issue. Political disagreements over these issues led to the then Labour Government here in Westminster making provision on these matters in 2000 through the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000, with flag flying on government buildings in Northern Ireland becoming a matter for the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000.
The Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 provide that on certain designated days the union flag, and in certain circumstances other flags, must be flown from government buildings. For the purposes of these regulations, a Northern Ireland government building is a building wholly or mainly occupied by members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The 2000 regulations also set out a number of “specified buildings” at which the union flag must be flown on the designated days in question. These buildings were chosen as they were the headquarters of Northern Ireland government departments. In 2002, the provisions of the regulations were extended by the then Government to court buildings in Northern Ireland.
After a very long gap of 18 years, the regulations were most recently amended in 2020 to deliver on a government commitment in New Decade, New Approach, which restored a devolved Government in Northern Ireland. This commitment was clear in stating that the Government will:
“Update the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 to bring the list of designated flag flying days from Northern Ireland government buildings and court-houses into line with the DCMS designated days, meaning the same designated days will be observed in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the UK”.
The Government will continue to deliver on this commitment to align the designated days in Northern Ireland with the rest of the UK.
As such, the instrument before the Committee today amends the 2000 regulations in four ways. The first two of the four amendments made by these regulations reflect the updated list of designated days for flag flying observed elsewhere in our country. They do so by amending the 2000 regulations following the sad death of His Royal Highness, the Duke of Edinburgh, last April, to remove his birthday, and the wedding day of Her Majesty the Queen, as designated days. A further amendment provides for the union flag to fly on the proclamation of a new monarch. This addresses an anomaly where currently the flags regulations only make provision for half-masting in the event of the death of a member of the Royal Family or a serving or former Prime Minister, and not for subsequent full masting upon the accession of a new monarch.
I trust that noble Lords will appreciate that, as the 2000 regulations set out in law the flying of flags from government buildings in Northern Ireland, they must have regard to a wide range of possible circumstances. It is for those reasons too that the final amendment provides that the union flag need not be flown on a designated day relating to a member of the Royal Family who has died.
The 2000 flags order requires that consideration be given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the Belfast agreement when making or amending the flags regulations. I can confirm that the Secretary of State is satisfied that these regulations treat flags and emblems in a manner that is respectful of Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances, while being fully consistent with Northern Ireland’s constitutional position as an integral part of our United Kingdom. The 2000 order also requires that consideration be given to regulations ahead of them being laid by the Northern Ireland Assembly. I can confirm this took place on 8 November and want to thank the Assembly for deliberating on these regulations in a considered and thoughtful manner.
I note that the other place debated this rather technical instrument in quick order—in some five and a half minutes—on 5 January and look forward to hearing contributions from noble Lords today. In that spirit, I commend the instrument to the Committee, and I beg to move.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the very technical provisions in these regulations. They deal with very sensitive issues relating to the passing of Prince Philip and the demarcation issues around the wedding day of the late Prince and Queen Elizabeth.
While the regulations make technical amendments, it is worth noting that flags and emblems in Northern Ireland have gone to the very heart of our society and community. They also lead in very much to our divided society. Northern Ireland is a divided society where flags and emblems are used on many occasions to mark out territory, define identity and cause internecine conflict between both traditions; this situation is heightened during the marching season. I suppose there are two flags: the flag of the United Kingdom and that of the Republic of Ireland. It is important that there is respect for both traditions and that we talk in terms of mutual understanding, building a shared society and having respect for political difference. Flags should not be dragged in the gutter to make a political point. Traditions should respect the value of identity and of those flags that demonstrate identity.
There is one issue, which was also raised during the Assembly debate on this on 8 November. The Minister will recall that, at the Stormont House talks, and then with the subsequent agreement, a decision was taken to establish the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition. It met on many occasions and eventually presented its report to the Executive Office last year. Even though it had worked on this for a considerable time before publishing the report in December, to me the report simply kicked the can down the road. No forward plan or action plan was produced, despite a delay of some two years in the report’s publication. It concluded that paramilitary flags—which are different from the union flag and the tricolour—and murals should not be displayed, but there was no plan from the commission to deal with this. Therefore, I ask the Minister to use his good offices with the Northern Ireland Executive, and in particular the Ministers in the Executive Office, to find out when they will bring forward a plan and when they will have discussions with the Government, under the strand one commitments of the Good Friday agreement, to deal with these issues. I am in no doubt that, to build that shared society, we require mutual understanding, reconciliation and, above all, respect for political difference.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear outline of the purpose of the legislation and his explanation of the provisions in it. It deals with some necessary amendments demanded to meet life’s realities. I once again pay tribute to His Royal Highness Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, who not only gave sterling service to the nation but had a particularly important role in promoting relationships within Northern Ireland, especially through participation in the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme.
These amendments remove Prince Philip’s birthday and Her Majesty the Queen’s wedding day from the list of designated days to fly the union flag. I regret this is necessary, but I accept its reality. It is also vital that we prepare for the death of our monarch, and in my heart I say, as I have often sung, “Long may she reign”. We are so privileged to have as our monarch the most remarkable woman in the world, whose integrity and strength of character have shone brightly in even the most difficult of circumstances. Her example is one that we all should seek to emulate.
I will make a few other remarks in the light of what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I want to make it clear that there are not two flags for Northern Ireland; there is one—the flag of the United Kingdom. I respect the flag of the Irish Republic for what it is: the flag of the Irish Republic. I live in an area in which every day I face travelling down the road with a flag of a foreign country being flaunted in my face. That is in a neighbourhood where many people were murdered by the IRA. I believe, from the remarks that have already been made, that all noble Lords acknowledge that flags and emblems are a sensitive issue in Northern Ireland. In reality, flags are important to the lives of the people of Northern Ireland, especially bearing in mind that many innocent people’s lives were taken to preserve our position within the United Kingdom. They were murdered because they believed in that reality.
However, before noble Lords today is a provision of reality. I therefore accept it. I regret only the limit to the designated days, because I would be delighted if our flag was flown across this United Kingdom every day and was looked on not as something divisive, but in acknowledgement of the great blessings and benefits it has brought to the people of all Northern Ireland.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, is not what the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, just said the civic ideal? Both flags could fly and it would not be an issue. I often think we are too prescriptive and ready to ban things. Surely the ideal of civil liberalism is not a world in which things are banned, but a world in which things are allowed and are not a problem. I used to think the same when we were having rows about the Orange walks and parades. The liberal ideal is not one in which they do not happen, but one in which they happen and no one is bothered by them. In the same way, would it not be a wonderful world if, for example when we were having the row about the flag over Belfast City Hall, one side said, “Do you know what? We didn’t know it meant that much to you. Go ahead”, and the other side said, “We didn’t want to upset you. Do you know what? We’ll be moderate and judicious”?
Of course, we are some way from that, but these regulations, bringing Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the country so that we have the same fundamental rules in the four home nations, are a step towards that civic ideal where we can all stand before flags—let me end, in a unifying spirit, with a quote from WB Yeats—
“Nor dazzled by the embroidery, nor lost
In … its night-dark folds”.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak in this debate, but I will say the following. A flag shows a nation state; the union flag represents all the countries in the United Kingdom. They also have separate flags, as when we watch football at Wembley, if we are good enough to get there. We had this debate for many years over the European flag, which was never a flag but an emblem, because it did not represent a single sovereign state.
I do not want to make things difficult. I am all for making sure that people are inclusive and that we recognise people wherever they come from. I have many friends in the Republic of Ireland and my family came from Northern Ireland, which I suppose was part of the republic of Ireland a long time ago. While I acknowledge that we are communautaire, as we used to say in the European Union, and recognise these things —we want peace and we want people to collaborate—this is a sensitive issue. I will be grateful for my noble friend the Minister’s remarks at the Dispatch Box.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lady Suttie, who is on a British Council delegation to Moscow which was delayed for a year. She has asked me to speak on her behalf. The New Decade, New Approach commitment aligned the flying of flags on designated days from government buildings in Northern Ireland with the rest of the UK, as we have heard, with regard to the Belfast agreement. The Northern Ireland Assembly was consulted about the draft proposals and agreed them.
Bringing them up to date, following the sad death of His Royal Highness Prince Philip, who had visited Northern Ireland 56 times, the draft instrument removes the need to fly the flag on his birthday, Her Majesty’s wedding day or any other day on which a designated member of the Royal Family dies. I am grateful to the Minister for laying that out. It stipulates that the union flag will be flown on the proclamation of a new monarch. The Liberal Democrats support the draft flags regulations.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I just want to ask a couple of questions.
The Explanatory Note includes the words:
“provide that the Union flag need not be flown on the designated days”
that
“relate to a member of the Royal Family who has died.”
Surely that should be “shall not”? It would be wholly inappropriate and insensitive to fly a flag for a member of the Royal Family who is not alive.
Could I ask which members of the Royal Family are entitled to have flags flown—the children of the monarch, or those in direct line of succession? It would be useful to know. Sadly, there are members of the Royal Family for whom flags may, or perhaps may not, be flown but whose careers, as may be inevitable from time to time, perhaps do not progress as satisfactorily as one would wish and who find themselves in difficult circumstances discrediting their name. Is there provision for the removal of such members of the Royal Family from the entitlement to have flags flown?
It is surprising that there is no existing provision making it mandatory to fly our nation’s flag on the accession of the monarch, but it is gratifying to know that the situation will be rectified. Like other Conservative and Unionist Members—and the noble Lord, Lord McCrea—who have spoken in this debate, what I like most is that the regulations provide that days and times when the flag has to be flown will be consistent with formal guidance issued in respect of United Kingdom Government buildings in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is entirely right that, throughout our country on designated days, in all parts of our country—all four portions of our United Kingdom—the same flag under which we all live should be flown. It is splendid and wonderful to think that there will be days when Cardiff, Edinburgh, London and Belfast will all be flying the emblem of our great nation.
An important day approaches, Accession Day on 6 February, marking the day in 1952 when our Queen ascended the Throne. I very much hope that that great day of 6 February will be marked in a way that is so right and appropriate, with the flag of our country flying in the four portions of our United Kingdom.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, has outlined the purpose of the regulations before us today, and, like other noble Lords, I am content to approve the regulations. As we have heard, the union flag will be flown on designated days on government and other buildings, and I very much support the proposal that the flying of the union flag in Northern Ireland should be brought into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick rightly set out that flags and emblems are a sensitive issue in Northern Ireland, and respect for difference is so important. I was born in London, as your Lordships can probably tell, and the union flag is the flag of the country I love; my parents were born in the Republic of Ireland, and that is the flag of my ancestors, and I very much love Ireland as well. So I think those things go together.
As the noble Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, explained, sadly, these regulations are necessary since His Royal Highness passed away. I join with the noble Lord in his warm tribute to His Royal Highness Prince Philip on his work and public service throughout his life to our great country, and I join the noble Lord in his warm tribute to Her Majesty the Queen on the work that she has given to our nation. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, in looking forward to the day that we celebrate Her Majesty’s accession to the Throne, as that will be a great day for our nation.
I very much support the regulations and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have participated in this short debate, in which we have, as anticipated, exceeded by some way the consideration and scrutiny provided in the other place. Rather than making a lengthy closing speech, I shall just pick up one or two of the comments that have been made by noble Lords.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, in a typically thoughtful and constructive speech, made the point that Northern Ireland is a divided society and we have to respect both traditions. I completely agree with her and believe that the flag-flying regulations indeed conform to the letter and spirit of the commitments in the Belfast agreement, which states that:
“All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need … to ensure that”
they are used
“in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division.”
I completely agree with that.
However, the flying of the union flag of course reflects the constitutional position of Northern Ireland as determined by the principle of consent in the Belfast agreement. It is worth noting that in 2019 the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal ruled that the regulations
“should be regarded as a pragmatic reflection of the current reality of the constitutional position and actively consented to in accordance with the spirit of the Agreement that Irish people, North and South, signed up to.”
So the regulations are consistent with the Belfast agreement and with respect for both main traditions in Northern Ireland, reflecting, as I say, the constitutional position.
The noble Baroness referred to the flags commission established by the Stormont House agreement, which I remember all too well as part of the UK Government negotiating team during those 11 weeks of somewhat tortuous talks. As the noble Baroness will be aware, part of the delay in publication of the flags commission report was down to the fact that there was no Executive between 2017 and 2020, which delayed matters somewhat.
I am very happy to look into the points that the noble Baroness made regarding implementation, conscious of the fact that when we discussed this in the strand one discussions at Stormont House those seven-plus years ago, it was always understood by all participants that the flags commission was a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, not Her Majesty’s Government. I think I am right in saying that, when the commission finally reported last December, it had no recommendations to make in areas that are covered by the regulations before your Lordships today. However, I will look at the point she makes regarding discussions with the Executive over how this is taken forward.
The noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, referred to the work of the Duke of Edinburgh over many years, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, whom I welcome to the Committee today—I am particularly pleased that she is speaking from the North Riding of God’s own county. I endorse everything that both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said about the Duke of Edinburgh over many decades—his tremendous record of service and duty to our nation—and I completely concur with the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, in his sentiments about Her Majesty’s the Queen, which I totally endorse. Long may she reign.
My noble friend Lord Hannan started off by referring to what might be regarded as an ideal world and then quickly qualified himself to make it clear that we were some distance from an ideal world when it came to the flying of flags in Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lady Foster referred to the European Union emblem, as I think she called it. I think both my noble friends will be pleased to know that the requirements for flying the European Union emblem or flag—however you wish to describe it—on Europe Day was removed by the last update of these regulations.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Lexden, if anybody in the Committee could be allowed to speak up on some of the wording of the Explanatory Memorandum it is my noble friend, and I say that having had my work as a very young researcher in the Conservative research department edited by my noble friend over a long time. If my writing style has certainly improved over the years, my noble friend has played a huge role in that.
My noble friend referred to a particular point in the memorandum. The text of the regulations as amended means that flags are not flown for members of the Royal Family who have died. That should be fairly straightforward and clear, but if the Explanatory Memorandum is a little confusing, I will certainly take that point away.
Lord Lexden (Con)
I asked whether it would be possible to establish which members of the Royal Family —children of the monarch and those in direct line of succession—this order applies to. Was there provision to remove the flying of the flag for members of the Royal Family whose careers, sadly, fall into some discredit?
Lord Caine (Con)
On my noble friend’s first point, I have a list, which I do not intend to read out, but I can certainly come back to him on that matter. On my noble friend’s second point, that would really be a matter for the Palace to determine and is not something that I could pronounce on. It is way above my unpaid grade.
Microchipping of Dogs (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Microchipping of Dogs (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this short and simple instrument is to extend the sunset clause contained in the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 by two years, until 23 February 2024. Without this instrument, the 2015 regulations will cease to have effect as of 24 February this year. This extension will enable the 2015 regulations to remain in force until we introduce a new set of regulations later this year.
The primary policy objective of the 2015 regulations is to improve animal welfare by increasing the traceability of dogs. This facilitates lost dogs being quickly reunited with their keepers. The 2015 regulations made it compulsory for dogs in England over eight weeks of age to be microchipped, unless exempted by a veterinary surgeon. The dog’s details must also be registered on a compliant database. The regulations set out the requirements which these databases must adhere to, as well as setting standards relating both to the microchips and to microchip implanters. Finally, the regulations give enforcement powers to local authorities and the police.
Under Regulation 18 of the 2015 regulations, the Government must review the regulations within five years of them coming into force. I must apologise to your Lordships that due to pressures within the department created first by EU exit and then by the pandemic, this review was published only in December last year, alongside a Defra-commissioned research report from Nottingham University which informed the review.
The review clearly demonstrates that dog microchipping has had a positive effect on reunification rates of stray dogs with their keepers. Before the intention to introduce compulsory dog microchipping was first announced in 2012, around 70% of dogs were microchipped. In 2021, that number was close to 90%.
The Nottingham University research showed that compulsory microchipping has contributed to a reduction in the number of stray dogs taken in by local authorities. This in turn has led to more of those stray dogs being reunited with their keepers. Battersea Dogs and Cats Home reported last year that stray dogs that are microchipped and have up-to-date microchip records are more than twice as likely to be reunited with their keepers than stray dogs without a microchip.
The review concluded that the current legislation is seen as an important and necessary means to achieve improvements in dog welfare by increasing the traceability of dogs and their keepers. The review, however, also highlighted areas where improvements to the micro- chipping regime would be beneficial. In particular, improvements could be made to the operation of the database system, a point raised by the Pet Theft Taskforce, which published its report last September.
Since the 2015 regulations came into force, there has been an increase in the number of databases that hold dog microchip records. These databases offer a range of services and provide choice for dog owners, but key users, such as local authorities and vets, have expressed concerns that this has made it more difficult and time-consuming to find the keeper details linked to a dog’s microchip number. In addition, to help combat pet theft we want to strengthen processes of updating a microchip record when a dog moves to a new keeper.
We are committed to addressing these issues, because we want to give every dog the best possible opportunity of being reunited with its keeper if it gets lost. We are working at pace to deliver changes, starting with a consultation that we intend to launch in March this year, which will pave the way for introducing changes to the microchipping regime.
Your Lordships will be interested to note that we announced last December that we will introduce compulsory cat microchipping, which will fulfil a manifesto commitment. As the existing microchip database system will also hold cat microchip records, we want to ensure that the database issues have been addressed before expanding the regulations to include cats. This approach is supported by stakeholders.
Our intention is to introduce a new, single set of regulations by the end of the year, which will incorporate the changes to the 2015 regulations and add a new requirement for compulsory microchipping of cats. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the regulations extending the current regime and for highlighting what is to follow. He will be aware of the work that we did when I chaired the EFRA Committee, and I am delighted to see that that work has brought good effect. I also welcome the fact that the microchipping will be extended to cats, which implements the manifesto pledge to all cat owners and dog owners. It is very good news indeed.
I still believe that one of the best means of ensuring that prospective owners can ensure the safe birth of their puppies is for the bitch to be present at the point of sale, and I understood from our noble friend Lord Goldsmith that that is indeed the case. That, too, is very welcome. Undoubtedly, the regulations before us today, and the future regulations, have improved the animal welfare of the dogs that went missing and, as my noble friend has highlighted, have expedited the time when those dogs are reunited with their owners.
More specifically, will my noble friend tell us the timetable for the review, and not only when the regulations will come before the House but when they will take effect? I assume from his comments that the regulations that will replace the regulations before us today will take effect from the end of this year.
I record my thanks to the Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, which shared the briefing with me about the regulations, and I would like to raise some of the issues that arise from that briefing.
My noble friend referred to the databases. My understanding is that currently there are only minimum requirements for a database to be compliant. There is nothing clear or obvious to a consumer that it is compliant or not compliant, and I believe that the consultation announced by my noble friend today to be held this year would provide the opportunity for that to be revisited. Would my noble friend and the department consider enhancing stipulations about database companies, making it a requirement for them to implement more systematically the process of information checking and updating to ensure the accuracy of their records? My noble friend said that compliance with microchipping is at 90%, which is very welcome if that figure is correct. When microchipping was first introduced, my understanding was that it was at 50%, so we have come a long way since then and it would be nice to think that we could close the gap on the remaining 10%.
Will my noble friend assure us this afternoon that local authorities will have sufficient resources, and indeed a legal duty, to enforce the regulations? Am I right that, at the moment, there is currently no legal obligation on any statutory body to enforce them? Will the Government produce best-practice guidance for local authorities, taking the practices that work best and rolling them out to all local authorities in future, and will they consider introducing the power to issue a conditional fixed penalty for non-compliance that could be cancelled or reduced once the keepers have complied?
I have addressed the point that there are apparently only minimum requirements for a database to be compliant. What duty is there for the database owners or the keepers to ensure that the database is regularly updated? Do they have to enter the information only once, as my noble friend suggests? What obligation are they under if they move house or the dog is sold? Who is responsible for keeping the information on the database updated, and what is the timeframe for that to be entered?
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, will address all the points of relevance to veterinary surgeons, but an issue that is of concern to vets is that there should be single-portal access to the database to prevent vets, enforcement and rescuers having to search through multiple websites after scanning to find a record. That would have significant time and resource implications if that was the case.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his excellent introduction and his articulation of the very positive effects of compulsory dog microchipping, which I congratulate the Government for introducing in 2015. Those regulations are very well supported by the animal welfare charities, the veterinary profession and me, but as the Minister has said, there are issues and shortcomings regarding the current regulations. It is good news that the Government are considering revising those regulations and that this extension is simply a stopgap, which I support. I want to consider some of the issues, problems and deficits in the current regulations, to which the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, have responded, but I welcome the Minister’s assurance that new regulations will be brought before the House this year.
I want to discuss three current issues that have been referred to already. First, on the issue of compliance and enforcement, 74% of stray dogs handled by local authorities in Great Britain cannot be easily and simply reunited with their keeper because either there is not a microchip or the data recorded in the database is incorrect, yet failure to microchip or to keep that information correct is an offence under the current regulations. In fact, we have no idea of the proportion of dogs that are microchipped and for which the details are kept up to date. Will Her Majesty’s Government consider giving local authorities the legal duty and the resource to enforce this and many other animal welfare legislative instruments? As has been stated by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, currently there is no official body with the legal obligation to do such enforcement.
I respectfully suggest that there is little point in us introducing new or improving existing animal welfare legislation unless and until we address the problem of the inadequate enforcement of the current legislation.
The second issue, which has been mentioned, is the number of databases. Currently, 17 databases can be chosen to record information from a microchip, which creates considerable problems, as have been referred to, for those seeking to identify a given dog, including my fellow veterinary surgeons and others who should be interrogating dogs’ microchip information. The requirements for the databases are laid out in Regulation 6 of the current 2015 regulations, but are we confident that adequate checks are being made to ensure that those requirements are met?
My second question to the Minister is this. The Secretary of State has powers to request information from database operators to ascertain whether they are meeting the conditions of their operation, as set out in Regulation 6 of the 2015 regulations, but how many times has such a notice been served on a database operator?
Following that is a third question. Will the Government, in their current revisions to the microchipping regulations, consider appointing, after open invitation, a single database provider, certainly one providing a single portal of entry, the performance of which can then be properly monitored?
Finally, I briefly raise the issue of biosecurity. Substantial numbers of dogs are being imported into Britain from continental Europe, mainly legally but many illegally. All have the potential to introduce not just rabies, for which there is a legal requirement for vaccination, but a number of other canine pathogens, some of which are zoonotic and can threaten the health of both the UK canine population and its human population. Some 10% of all strays in London are now registered on a foreign database, and we have no idea how many entered the UK legally or illegally.
So my final question for the Minister is this. What plans do Her Majesty’s Government have to reduce these risks of disease introduction? I appreciate that I have not given notice of these questions, so I would accept responses by letter, if need be.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for his time, and that of his officials, in providing a briefing for this statutory instrument. The microchipping of dogs, which was introduced in 2015, has made a tremendous difference to the owners of the dogs and to the dogs themselves. The safety and traceability of dogs are made easier by this process. Dogs are often lost or stolen but are reunited with their owners through the information stored on the microchip, and reducing the number of stray dogs is to be welcomed.
The sunset clause on this regulation terminates on 24 February this year. I note that the Government conducted a consultation on extending this clause, the results of which were due to be published in December 2021. Presumably this has happened. Given the instrument expires in February, the consultation was somewhat late taking place.
A second targeted consultation, to 36 stakeholders, took place in November 2021. Just over half responded. Given the level of support from those responding, I am surprised that the Government have not removed the sunset clause altogether, instead of extending it by two years. However, I understand the need to take this opportunity to rectify the anomalies in data collection and to include the compulsory microchipping of cats in future microchipping legislation. Can the Minister say what the database issues are and whether they will all be addressed in the new regulations?
Nottingham University undertook a lengthy report on the post-implementation review of the 2015 legislation, but unfortunately, probably due to my own incompetence, I could find no reference to this when I searched on the internet. Can the Minister say whether this report has been published and, if not, whether it is likely to be? Is this likely to be before the next consultation, which, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, is likely to cover areas for improvement in the existing regulations?
Currently, when you take your dog along to the vet for their routine health check or vaccinations, your vet will routinely scan the dog for their microchip. However, there is no enforced regulation on veterinary staff to report to the authorities dogs that have not been microchipped. Is this one of the anomalies which the revised legislation will include in future?
There was no updated impact assessment in the EM for this SI. As the 2015 impact assessment was still extant, can the Minister confirm that, when this new regulation has been updated to include the compulsory microchipping of cats and provisions on other database issues, an updated impact assessment will be issued to cover all aspects of the new regulations? Can he confirm that there will also be no sunset clause?
My husband and I took on a rescue dog in the spring of last year. The dog had not been maltreated, but its owner was suffering from dementia and could no longer look after it. Through the microchip, we were able to estimate roughly how old the dog was and to see that it had been vaccinated and well cared for previously. I am sure that many others who have done the same are grateful for the information provided on the microchip, but it is important that there is adequate enforcement.
Pet theft is an invidious crime and extremely upsetting to families with children and the elderly, whose only companion may be a dog or a cat. Therefore, it is important that microchipping of dogs should continue without interruption, and I would like the Minister’s reassurance that the new regulation will be laid well before the nine-year sunset clause runs out in 2024.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for the helpful briefing he organised. On the face of it, this seems a straightforward proposal, and we certainly do not want to see the sunset clause come into force on 24 February as a result of our inaction, so we clearly support this regulation.
The question arises as to why a sunset clause was added in the first place. I have been covering this department for so long that I probably contributed to the original decision back in 2015, although I do not remember the arguments put forward at that time. But we are where we are. Of course, as the Minister said, the first report on the implementation of microchipping was due to be held within five years. I appreciate his recognition that there has been a delay, which has caused this SI to be necessary, and his apology.
I am grateful to the departmental official Craig Lee for sending me a copy of the review into the legislation. I got round to requesting it slightly before the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, had a chance to do so. It was very interesting reading, as was the report from Nottingham University that underpinned it. I was pleased to see that microchipping had achieved the desired outcomes of improving animal welfare through the increased traceability of owners and reducing the number of stray dogs.
However, the review also identifies some challenging issues, which have been echoed by noble Lords today. There is, for example—I do not know whether anybody would have foreseen this—the new plethora of microchip database companies that have sprung up. As we have heard, this has made ownership tracing more complex. Like other noble Lords, I think it would be helpful if the Minister could shed a little light on how the Government intend to deal with this. By any stretch of the imagination, having 17 databases seems impractical when trying to monitor and keep up with the ownership of individual animals.
Did we anticipate that this would happen, and is the Minister satisfied that we have the right standards for these databases and are scrutinising them before they are set up, or will that come from any new regulations? Are there any constraints on how much somebody can charge for using a database? Is that why we suddenly have so many—because they are easy money, if I can put it that way, without having to do a great deal? Noble Lords have made a case today that on the face of it seems quite sensible: that we should have a single portal of access, or indeed one database, which could be agreed through some sort of nomination process. It would certainly make people’s lives easier when trying to trace the owners of dogs, or to check the dogs’ history.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate.
To tackle a point raised by a number of noble Lords about the sunset clause, despite there being a sunset clause in the 2015 regulations, they were never intended to fall away seven years after coming into force. The clause was intended to put a marker in the sand for a thorough review. Now that we have done that review it is only right that we address the findings before adding the requirement for the compulsory microchipping of cats, an approach supported by key stakeholders such as Cats Protection. I am grateful for noble Lords’ support today for that move.
On the 2015 regulations review, besides a need to make it easier for key users such as dog wardens or vets to access microchip details, the Pet Theft Taskforce recommended strengthening processes in the transfer of keepership. In addition, the post-implementation review of the 2015 regulations highlighted a need to consider how to deal with records being held on more than one database—I will come back to that in a minute —and suggested the inclusion of a number of new record requirements, such as rescue back-up information, as part of it. We plan to launch a consultation, as has been said, in March.
I will tackle the points that other noble Lords have raised. A number of concerns were raised, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, about the impact assessment. The original impact assessment published alongside the 2015 regulations had assessed impacts over 10 years. The two-year extension of the regulations in this SI therefore falls within this already assessed period, meaning that no new impact assessment is needed. In addition, this SI does not introduce any policy changes. However, I assure the noble Baroness that there will be a new impact assessment for the new regulations. I think my noble friend Lady McIntosh also raised that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also raised a point about the Nottingham University report. Defra commissioned the university to review the effectiveness of the compulsory dog microchipping policy in England and to provide views about compulsory cat microchipping. Compulsory dog microchipping, as I have said, has contributed to the reduction in the number of stray dogs handled by local authorities and an increased reunification rate for lost dogs. The research also demonstrated support for the introduction of cat micro- chipping.
The report makes a number of recommendations on how to make compulsory microchipping more effective, notably by increasing public awareness and improving the ease of navigation of the microchip databases. We will factor these recommendations in to the public consultation on proposed changes to the current dog microchipping regulations. We aim to launch the consultation, as I have said, in March. I will make sure that we send the noble Baroness the link so that she can see the University of Nottingham report.
Noble Lords asked about the legal provisions on microchipping. Since 6 April 2016, it has been a requirement for dogs in England to be microchipped. Puppies over the age of eight weeks must be registered on one of the compliant databases. That answers my noble friend’s question in part. There is a devolved issue here; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also have mandatory microchipping requirements, and we are working with those Administrations to make sure that there is seamlessness across the United Kingdom. The databases are run by private companies, not by the Government or local councils. Dog owners are also required to keep their pet’s details up to date on these databases.
It was asked how we know on which database a microchip is registered. As has been pointed out, there are currently a plethora—I think that was the word the noble Baroness used—of them. Seventeen separate databases hold themselves out as compliant with the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015. If anyone wishes to find out which database a specific microchip is registered on, they need only enter the individual microchip number on a look-up facility, which is accessible from the Government’s website. It is also available from any compliant database’s website.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, asked whether we would migrate on to a single database. We consider that significant improvements can be made to the operation of the existing microchipping databases. We are exploring the possibility of creating a single point of access for key users to compliant databases. Database operators are commercial enterprises which offer a range of services and provide choice for pet owners. However, we are confident that improvements can be made to the current regime, and these will be considered as part of our consultation that starts in March.
I was asked what we are doing to stop non-compliant databases advertising to dog owners. Clearly, that is a very regrettable situation when it occurs. The Government are aware that there are databases which are not compliant. Dog owners registering their animal’s details on one of these databases are not meeting the mandatory requirements. We are discussing this with trading standards as well as with a leading internet search facility to explore how to combat the issue of non-compliant databases advertising to dog owners. A list of compliant databases can be found on the GOV.UK website.
Questions were asked about the quality standards for microchips. Under the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015, they must have a unique number which includes the manufacturer’s code and be compliant with the ISO standard. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about foreign imports and dogs coming from abroad. In the UK and the European Union microchips must be compliant with international—ISO—standards. The unique number on an ISO-compliant microchip identifies the manufacturer.
As I say, microchipping policy is devolved, so all Administrations have their own regulations governing the microchipping of dogs. The consultation which asked for views on compulsory cat microchipping and potential scanning reform focused only on England. However, we are talking to the devolved Administrations.
A dog should be registered on only one database. This is fundamental; we are considering making a change on this and will include that in our consultation.
A question was asked about whether different databases are compliant with the regulations and talking to each other effectively. Each compliant database is operated as a stand-alone, commercial entity. Under the regulations, compliant databases must have processes in place to enable anyone to find out which database any microchip is registered on. We will consult further on this.
Issues have been raised by some stakeholders concerning Europetnet. The Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 apply to England only. It is not a legal requirement for database companies to be registered with Europetnet, which is a European-wide central host of microchip details.
I was asked whether we will make it mandatory for all dogs with a foreign microchip to be registered on a compliant database as part of—I presume the noble Lord means—customs clearance or importation. The Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations already require a keeper to microchip and register their dog on a compliant database within 30 days of importation.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh wanted more details about the timings. We think that we will be able to do this by the end of the year. I am very conscious of the noble Baroness; I do not want to have to come here and say that that date has moved, but we hope that it will not. There is a role for the LGA on this—it can help local authorities by reducing costs through effective management of this issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about pet theft, which also relates to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. I know of no delays to that Bill. I suggest that the noble Baroness does not believe everything she reads. If there are any changes to it, of course there is great pressure on parliamentary time, but I feel sure that she will get her moment to scrutinise that piece of legislation very soon.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, referred to a code of practice. We recognise that we need to consider how databases are meeting the requirement, and we will consider a code of practice when we consider the responses to the consultation.
I think I have responded to most of the questions. If any noble Lord feels that I have not responded to theirs, this is a final moment to raise it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am almost certain that my noble friend has responded to this point, but could he confirm that he said that if someone were to go to the GOV.UK website, it would show where the microchip was registered? That would satisfy my query about having a single portal. Has he also addressed how the Government intend to tackle the issue of dogs with microchips from France and other countries and the foreign disease risk that they represent?
Lord Benyon (Con)
That is a very good point. It was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and is very much in my mind as we tackle a range of new diseases coming to this country, particularly, unfortunately, with the recent importation of dogs from Afghanistan. We were told that these dogs were healthy, but it turned out that a number of them had very serious diseases, including Brucella canis, which we really want to keep out of this country.
We are constantly alert to the need for new disease provisions. Our biosecurity in this country is fundamental. Our new border control posts, particularly on the short straits, will soon come online, and this will be an opportunity to work with Border Force to make sure that we identify where risks occur. The rules on the importation of animals, particularly to tackle the scourge of puppy farming and the bringing in of large numbers of dogs for illegal trade in this country, are one of the provisions of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill that we want to see brought online.
Lord Trees (CB)
I am grateful to hear that there will perhaps be codes of practice for the database operators. With regard to whether they are doing what they are meant to do, I specifically asked how many times the Secretary of State has served a notice on them to check that they are doing what they are meant to be doing. Perhaps the noble Lord can answer that question.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am not aware of that, although I might just have received some inspiration. No, I have not. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will drop him a line.
I am not sure of the exact nature of the page on the government website and what guidance it gives dog owners, but I will check and give my noble friend any information I can.
With that, I hope that I have covered all the points raised.
Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services Licence Modification Appeals) (Prescribed Aerodromes) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services Licence Modification Appeals) (Prescribed Aerodromes) Regulations 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the Transport Act 2000. The regulations set out which airports may appeal licence modification decisions made by the Civil Aviation Authority, or CAA, in respect of the en-route air traffic services licence granted under Section 6 of the Transport Act 2000. In essence, this instrument will ensure that the aerodromes likely to be materially affected by a decision to modify a licence condition are able to appeal those decisions.
Air traffic management services in the UK fall into two categories. The first are terminal air navigation services provided at individual airports. They support arrivals, departures, and planes in the vicinity of the airport typically up to an altitude of 7,000 feet. This is a competitive market, with airports procuring these services from a number of possible organisations or providing their own. The second are for planes outside of these areas, such as planes at cruising altitude, or planes being guided to gateways where they can be handed over to terminal control services of airports. These services are delivered by a monopoly provider, regulated under the en-route air traffic licence.
The Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021—the ATMUA Act—updated the Transport Act 2000 to give the CAA a more effective power to modify the conditions of air traffic services licences. Currently, the only licence which has been granted is held by NATS (En Route) plc, also known as NERL, to provide certain air traffic services in the United Kingdom. Under the previous framework, the CAA could only modify the conditions of this licence with consent from the licence holder or via a determination by the Competition and Markets Authority.
To modernise the licensing framework, alongside the powers to modify the licence conditions the Act also introduced a new appeal process into the Transport Act 2000, which gives appeal rights in respect of licence modifications to three parties. The first is NERL, the licence holder; the second is the owner or operator of an aircraft whose interests are materially affected by the decision; and/or an owner or manager of a “prescribed aerodrome” whose interests are materially affected by the decision. Should any of these parties wish to appeal the decision to modify a licence condition, they could appeal to the CMA on one of more of the following grounds, namely: that the decision was based on an error of fact; that the decision was wrong in law; and/or that an error was made in the exercise of a discretion. For the relevant aerodromes to be able to appeal licence modification decisions, they must be prescribed in secondary legislation, which is what this draft instrument seeks to do.
Turning to the content of the SI, the CAA can modify the conditions set out within NERL’s licence. A licence condition relates to operational matters, such as the requirements which the licence holder must meet to maximise safety and efficiency, and includes conditions relating to control of charges—the prices that users of NERL’s services pay for the services that they receive. To modify a licence condition, the CAA first must publish a notice in relation to the proposed modification. It must state that it is proposing to modify the licence and set out what the modification is, the reasons for it and its effect. It must then give a reasonable period for NERL and the other relevant stakeholders to make representations. The Department for Transport consulted on this policy in 2017. Stakeholders were broadly supportive of the policy and no aerodromes at the time requested additional appeal rights.
As the licence conditions include control of charges for the London approach service, the Government have decided that airport operators whose interests could be materially affected by the decision to modify a licence condition are likely to be airports receiving the London approach service from the licence holder, and that these aerodromes should be able to appeal these decisions on the grounds of fairness. The London approach service consists of the control and sequencing of flights between the licence holder’s en-route service, which will be quite high up, and which operationally include holding stacks, and the tower service at London airports, which is quite low down, and which is provided at each airport by an air navigation service provider under contract with the airport operator. Airports currently receiving the London approach service from NERL are Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and London City, and these regulations enable those airports to appeal. These regulations have been drafted in such a way as to ensure that in the future, should another aerodrome become part of the London approach service from NERL under its licence, it too will be able to appeal modifications to licence conditions.
This instrument will ensure that the aerodromes likely to be materially affected by a decision to modify a licence condition can appeal those decisions. It is as simple as that. I beg to move.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Explanatory Memorandum and the information she just gave us. There are two areas highlighted by the Explanatory Memorandum that are hugely important, which are the failures with computer systems and with NERL. But I want to raise another, which I hope has been fully rectified now. I was the rapporteur in the European Parliament in 2015 on the safe use of civil RPASs or drones, so I will reflect on what happened a couple of years ago, because this is a growing industry and we need to make sure we keep our eye on the ball.
As I recollect, between 19 and 21 December 2018, there were drone sightings at Gatwick. Regrettably, 140,000 passengers and 1,000 flights were affected. This was the biggest closure since the 2010 volcanic eruption in Iceland and, I have to say, the way it was handled became quite farcical. The airport spokesman said they could not do much about it, because there was no counter-drone technology when, actually, there was, albeit it was not at Gatwick then. It also ended with two people being arrested and, fortunately, released and paid compensation. It was not exactly a good look for the UK.
In addition, we must also realise the challenge of geo-fencing in the civil drones sector. This is particularly difficult for airfields, due to their geographical size. For example, Gatwick or Heathrow—a large airport—covers several square miles, but just in their infrastructure and to their boundaries or the end of the runways. That does not include the miles of airspace above, where an aircraft can be at risk either on ascent or descent. We know this is a huge challenge.
Nevertheless, the cost of the investigation was £800,000 and it had to include the police, military and the RAF in particular. The good news that followed was that Gatwick and others installed counter-drone technology in 2019, which is now available across all the appropriate airports in the United Kingdom.
We have a world-class civil aviation industry and reputation, which I am sure all noble Lords agree we must maintain. I ask my noble friend to give me the reassurance that the CAA, which is an excellent regulatory body, will continue to have clear and detailed oversight of this area to maintain our high standards, certainly in this growing industry.
The final point I raise, which will be covered by two other noble Lords so I will not cover it in too much detail, is regarding EGNOS. I was again a rapporteur in the European Parliament on GNSS, so I have a serious interest in the systems we require to make sure our airfields are well-equipped. Since, by all accounts, EGNOS was stopped last year, a number of our peripheral, small airports have been put in huge difficulty. We have flights either being cancelled or their safety jeopardised, for both passengers and crew. They are hugely reliant on life-saving services coming in, whether to take people to the hospitals on the mainland or for other reasons.
I will finalise on those points, because I think my noble friend is aware of them and has passed them on. We look forward to meeting with the appropriate Minister at some stage, and I thank her very much for taking these points on board.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in yet another short debate on navigation systems. I was very grateful to the Minister for writing to noble Lords to clarify things after the last debate, but I was sorry that I did not get a letter saying that she had arranged a meeting with the Minister for Aviation. I hope that she may tell us more about that today.
I wanted to update noble Lords on what has happened on EGNOS since the last debate. I have been given a copy of a letter from Robert Courts MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Air, to Jim McMahon MP, a Labour shadow Secretary of State, dated 22 June. The letter explains why the Government are not going ahead with EGNOS, and basically says that, in discussions with the European Commission, the Government decided that it was not considered to offer good value for the taxpayer.
I have been reflecting on what that means. Having talked to people in the Highlands and Islands, and Loganair, and having been in the Isles of Scilly last weekend, I discovered that the issue of safety of life, which the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, mentioned, is actually quite serious. In Scilly, there is no ferry in the winter, so people rely on air. There was a time between Christmas and new year this year when some people got delayed and had to spend five days in a hotel with their family, which does not come cheap.
More importantly, the Isles of Scilly and many of the Scottish islands rely on air help for medical emergencies—either a helicopter or a fixed-wing plane, depending on the circumstances. If people cannot fly due to bad navigation, usually fog, their health is at risk. I am not sure how the Minister for Aviation can say that that is not good value for money. I do not know how much he puts on a life that is lost because you cannot fly, when there is an alternative.
The Minister may not have the answers today, so perhaps she could write, but what is the actual cost of reinstalling EGNOS? There must be a cost from the European Union, even as a temporary measure. If there is an alternative, what is it, and when will it be ready? We need answers to those questions, because at the moment a lot of money is being spent on abortive attempts to keep EGNOS going, or not even start it. Maybe some of those who spent the money will look to have compensation, but it is more important that we find a solution that can be done and, I hope, worked with the European Union, even as a temporary measure.
I conclude by noting that the Channel Islands, which are not part of the UK air traffic system, have EGNOS. They have confirmed to me that they are continuing to use it, and as far as I can gather it does not cost them very much, if anything at all. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that she can soon give us a date for meeting the Air Minister.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for raising this aspect of air traffic services, and it is a pleasure to follow him. I should perhaps draw attention to my role as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation and as an aviator who is often confronted with inclement weather conditions, when the provision of satellite-assisted navigation is of enormous help.
At the conclusion of the Brexit negotiations, a number of reasons were put forward from various sources as an explanation for the loss of the high-accuracy guidance provided by the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service, EGNOS, ranging from running out of negotiating time to the EU demanding an excessive amount of money to remain within the Galileo system. Seeking clarification in a Written Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on 20 April last year, I asked
“what financial contribution the EU requested for the UK to continue to access the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service Safety of Life service; how the request compared with the UK’s previous contributions; how they assessed value for money in view of its impact on aviation; and what plans they have to renegotiate access to this service.”
It was a disappointing response. I was told:
“The UK sought to negotiate a service access agreement on
EGNOS
“with the EU. However, the EU required participation in the programme along with the full associated costs of participation, as per previous years, for continued access to the EGNOS Safety of Life service. For all programmes under consideration, the Government was clear it would only participate where the terms were in the UK’s interests, and in this case, it was not considered value for money.”
The question of financial contribution was not answered.
I am bound to say that I find that quite astonishing. The whole purpose of EGNOS, which provides localiser performance with vertical guidance, commonly known as LPV accuracy, is the safe operation of aircraft. The clue is in the title: Safety of Life service. Surely this should be in the UK’s interest, and everyone else’s.
The loss of this service has had enormous financial implications for airfields, many of them small training establishments, which have assisted in EGNOS-assisted approaches. What is more, student pilots training for commercial licences have lost the opportunity to undertake the necessary practical training for those airfield approaches within the UK, with the prospect of moving to European training schools and consequent loss of revenue to UK training establishments.
Above all, it is the safety access which the EGNOS service provides and which has now been lost due to the Government putting value for money before the Safety of Life service. My question is simple: how much would it cost to retain that facility, or is it still the Government’s position that finances override the safety aspect of EGNOS?
In answer to a further Written Question of mine a year ago, I was informed:
“The Government continues to explore options for mitigating the loss of the LPV capability.”
Perhaps the Minister can update the House on exactly how much further forward we are on those much needed options and what the timescale is.
This is an extremely important issue on which the aviation community feels sorely let down, so I ask the Minister to do whatever she can to reinstate this important service, which, on the face of it, appears to have gone completely off the radar. I look forward to my noble friend’s response.
As we are considering aviation licensing issues, perhaps I can ask my noble friend’s indulgence for a moment longer on the issue of a recently adopted regulation resulting in pilots now being prevented from flying in UK airspace using US FAA flight crew licences. This is having a particular effect on helicopter operations. As the Minister will know, many pilots in the UK have FAA licences due to the costs involved with the UK’s authority, the CAA, which is one of the most expensive authorities in the developed world. I believe that Article 2(1)(b)(ii) of UK regulation 2018/1139 is the element causing problems for owners. The legislation applies to all third-country licence holders, including FAA licence holders resident in the UK, and all third-country aircraft registered in the UK.
The pressing issue is residence within the UK. If it was a case of the aircraft residing elsewhere, it would not be an issue. The legislation does not consider aircraft on the FAA register separately, as they are on a third-country register. Pilots and engineers who work on aircraft hold a multitude of different licences, not just FAA ones. Rather puzzlingly, the FAA instructor who conducts checkrides is invariably also a UK CAA examiner. Therefore, it is difficult for operators to understand why they should now be stopped from flying. We have a frustrated section of the aviation community unable to fly for business, with multimillion-pound helicopters and experienced private and commercial pilots having been made redundant through the legislation. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how the DfT plans to address the issue.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the Minister for her introduction to these regulations. I will start by addressing what is in them before turning to other issues—I do not want to disappoint her, but I will turn to other issues.
The background to these regulations seems to lie in two serious systems failures way back in 2013 and 2014. These led in due course to this SI, via the 2021 Act. It has taken a very long time to get here, in an industry where technological development is very fast paced. Both the CAA and the CMA have additional responsibilities as a result of these regulations. They are the Government’s usual maids-of-all-work; barely a week seems to pass here without them picking up some additional responsibility. I ask my usual question to the Minister: what additional resources are they being provided with as a result of these additional responsibilities?
A recent Written Answer to one of my questions revealed that two people had been assigned to the team tasked with promoting general aviation and liaison with general aviation airfields, spending £375,000. By comparison, these regulations deal with very large airports and very large numbers of large airports. How many people are to be regularly devoted to the licensing of air traffic services? How many additional people does the Minister think will be required as a result of these regulations?
I say this because paragraph 12.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers very specifically to an increase in the number of appeals. It talks about an 8% increase in the number of minor modifications appeals and a 12% increase for major modification appeals. When, where and how did these figures come about? How were they arrived at? There was no formal consultation and no full impact assessment. My concern is that, without those, it is very difficult to be that precise. I was surprised by that lack of consultation, because modifications which affect the London approach affect a very large number of users—not just large companies and airports but the users of the airports and small companies and individuals too.
I move on to the other issue, EGNOS. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his continued work on this really important issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, spoke with great expertise and knowledge on this. I have also been surprised by the lack of any apparent reference to the loss of EGNOS. I have been looking online, on the DfT website, for a formal statement; there is absolute silence, as far as I can see, on this essential issue.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I start by saying that I will probably end up making the shortest speech so far—I hasten to add that that is in no way a criticism of any speeches made, but simply a statement of fact. Like others, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the content and purpose of these regulations. Although I have in front of me a statement on the background and what the regulations do, I will not wade through it; the Minister and others have already outlined that.
I raise one issue only, but say before that that I await with great interest the answers to the questions raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster of Oxton and Lady Randerson, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I refer to the statement by Robert Courts MP, which is in the EM:
“The intention of this measure is to ensure that airports which receive an approach control service from the licence holder through its licence are able to appeal decisions relating to modification of licence conditions”.
The EM goes on to say that:
“The number of expected licence modifications over a 20-year period is expected to be between 8 and 16 modifications for major modifications such as price controls, and between 6 and 18 modifications for minor modifications such as procedural changes.”
Like others, I am not sure what workload or otherwise that would generate, so some clarification would be helpful.
I ask that in the context of paragraph 12.4 of the EM, which has already been referred to. It says that:
“In allowing prescribed aerodromes to appeal decisions there is the potential that a greater number of appeals will be launched. However, during the consultation phrase, no aerodromes requested appeal rights, which suggests they may be unlikely to appeal modifications to licence conditions.”
Bearing in mind that the more major modifications may relate to price controls, are there any criteria for changing those price controls? If it is confidently expected that there will be no appeals, presumably, when the changes are made, if they are, they will be relatively limited as far as the prescribed aerodromes are concerned. The Minister has already mentioned which aerodromes those are.
I therefore seek further information about modifications to price controls, the criteria for making them, how frequently they are made—it appears to be fairly infrequent—and whether they have ever proved controversial before in relation to prescribed aerodromes. That is the only point I wish to raise. The subject matter covered by the SI seems straightforward and desirable, but I await the answers to the other issues that were raised with interest.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions today. It has turned into a general debate on air stuff, so noble Lords will not be surprised that I came here with 49 pages of briefing to answer detailed questions on the SI and am therefore unable to answer issues that have been raised that, frankly, are not even close to the scope of what is before noble Lords today.
Noble Lords mentioned EGNOS to me recently. I have confirmed with the office of the Aviation Minister that he is happy to meet with you. All noble Lords with an interest may pop along to that meeting and I hope to get there as well.
My noble friend Lady Foster asked about unmanned aircraft. I am sure she would have appreciated being in the House for the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill. We had lots of fun. It took a long time, but we talked a lot about drones and the role of the CAA. I remain reassured that the CAA has a grip on the situation. In that Bill, we gave the police extra powers to ensure that drones are appropriately enforced, where needed. I will try to get a response for my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower about American licences.
I turn to the contents of this SI. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, will recall the challenges of getting the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill through, which is where these powers very much came from. But it was not necessarily the case that there was a great big gap between that and some of the failures that happened before. There were just two failures, which were obviously both very carefully investigated by the CAA, working very closely with NATS to establish exactly what happened. That work took quite a long time, and we know that, on 25 February last year, for example, following an investigation under the Transport Act 2000, the CAA published its final decision confirming that NERL had contributed some of its statutory and licence duties and obligations in the period January 2019 into 2020 in relation to the provision of sufficient staffing resilience in the London approach service for users of Stansted and Luton airports. In making its findings, the CAA took account of the very difficult circumstances faced by the aviation sector and the significant reduction of air traffic volumes following the Covid-19 pandemic. It strikes me that, prior to those powers being available, the CAA has historically had a firm grip on NATS and its activities, and continues to get very involved wherever there may be failings.
What is under discussion today is actually a very small and narrow element of the world of licences and the provision of air traffic management services. The CAA, as is stated in the Explanatory Memorandum, rarely updates the licence—but it does, and when it does, as I set out in my opening speech, it does it by consultation with everybody who is likely to be affected. Therefore, it is not a surprise to us, and I believe should not be a surprise to the industry either, that we expect appeals to be relatively rare, because an enormous amount of consultation will go on beforehand. We know that people will be able to put forward their views—and I believe that we discussed this during the passage of the ATMUA Bill, now the ATMUA Act, as to the appeals process, how likely the appeals were likely to be, and whether there were resources at the CMA. We went through all those things, and I believe that, when the Bill was passed, we had reached a pretty good assessment about how we felt the appeals process was going to be.
We know that no airports have actually asked for these powers, but the Government have, out of an abundance of caution, given them the ability to appeal, just in case they need to. The reality is that it is only going to be about a modification that is about a change of price, because essentially everything else is not really related to the airports. The airlines and owners of the aircraft have far more beef with it. For the airports, it is really about the hand-off between up there and down here, and the charge for that hand-off that they might want to challenge, but they have never given us any indication that they would do so. The chances of getting an SI passed if they wanted to do so in future is, quite frankly, probably not huge.
That is why we are doing this—just in case they want to. We are not expecting them to do so, and they have given us no indication that they will. But we said that we would do it in the Bill; we felt that it was the fair thing to do, and that is why we are here today. The figures that we put in the EM explain that there may be a 10% increase in the number of appeals. We feel that that may be high, but we have to put something in there. In general, that is why the impact assessment is de minimis, because from this SI there will be almost no impact at all. I have some figures for costs somewhere, and I might put it in a letter afterwards, but our estimated costs are very small.
To that end, we do not see that this SI will cause the CAA to have any resource implications at all. As we know, modifications are fairly infrequent and we expect appeals to be rare. Appeals for this particular thing are possibly like hens’ teeth. I very much hope that it does not have a full-time member of staff on it. However, I will write with information on the number of people who look after NERL licensing. That is a very good challenge and I will find out exactly how big that group is.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made a very short speech; I thank him for being here because I know that he has had an incredibly busy day in the Chamber as well. However, the points he raised about whether there is likely to be an appeal and what has to happen in order for that change to happen have been covered.
I have run out of things to say from the questions that I was asked. As ever, I will look through Hansard and write if necessary.
Competition Appeal Tribunal (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
That the Grand Committee do consider the Competition Appeal Tribunal (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2022.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, the statutory instrument before us this afternoon grants the Competition Appeal Tribunal a permanent power to broadcast its hearings to the public using audio and video technology. I put it in terms of a power because the decision to broadcast in any case is subject to judicial discretion, should the judge have a reason in a particular case not to allow a hearing to be broadcast. The draft order is made under Section 32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. Importantly, this order replaces a temporary order which will expire on 25 March 2022.
For noble Lords who are not intimately familiar with it, the Competition Appeal Tribunal, more generally known as the CAT, is a specialist tribunal whose principal functions are to hear and decide cases involving competition or economic regulatory issues, including appeals to decisions by the Competition and Markets Authority and some other economic regulators. The CAT is sponsored by BEIS, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but, as the power to make this order is conferred on the Lord Chancellor, it has therefore been drafted and laid before Parliament by the Ministry of Justice.
Noble Lords will be aware that, during the pandemic, our courts and tribunals swiftly moved to holding hearings remotely using audio and video technology. To ensure that open justice was maintained in these circumstances, a temporary provision in the Coronavirus Act 2020 allowed most courts and tribunals to transmit their proceedings to remote observers who had specifically requested access. The CAT was not included in the Coronavirus Act 2020 provisions. So, to ensure that the CAT could continue to hold its hearings and broadcast them, a temporary statutory instrument, under Section 32 of the 2013 Act that I mentioned, enabled the CAT to broadcast its proceedings via a link on its website.
That has worked successfully. In a recent case concerning Newcastle United Football Club, around 33,000 individuals from over 50 countries were interested in watching the hearing, with around 4,000 observers watching it at any one time. Whether that was due to the legal issues in that case or was related to Newcastle United Football Club, I am afraid I cannot assist the Committee.
This current and temporary SI will expire, as I say, on 25 March this year, when the Coronavirus Act 2020 is due to expire. Because the broadcasting in this tribunal has been a success, we want to make the CAT’s ability to broadcast its proceedings permanent.
This instrument reproduces the existing temporary order, with two additional provisions which I should bring to the Committee’s attention. One is provision to revoke the temporary order, which is self-explanatory. The other mirrors provision included in other instruments under this power in relation to the Court of Appeal and Crown Court and requires that any use of the footage of the CAT must be fair and accurate. For example, it cannot be used for party-political broadcasts, advertisements or promotions, light entertainment or, need I add, satire. Additionally, the CAT has guidance accompanying each hearing listed for broadcast containing a warning that it is not permitted for any person to record a live-stream hearing and that breaching this requirement would constitute contempt of court.
I underline the point that this order strengthens the principle of open justice, which is a fundamental principle in this jurisdiction and has been for centuries. It means that those who are interested will be able to watch the CAT’s proceedings from the convenience of their homes or offices, or anywhere else. Importantly, it retains ultimate judicial discretion over the actual broadcast in any particular case. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, the Liberal Democrats have always supported open justice and continue to do so. Therefore, we very much support this instrument. During the lockdown periods, I watched my daughter-in-law, who is a judge of the First-tier Tribunal, conduct her hearings online. She has done so consistently in providing justice in the north-west. I have been very impressed with the way in which justice has been seen to be done in that area. I have nothing further to add.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we too support these measures. It seems entirely sensible that they should continue, as they seem to have been operating satisfactorily during the various lockdowns we have been through.
As the Minister said, judicial discretion is retained. I would be interested if he could give an example of when it may be appropriate for the judge to determine that the proceedings should not be made available to members of the public who may wish to hear what is going on.
I have done my fair share of remote hearings in court from my dining room table. I sometimes did hearings in court and then proceedings in Parliament on the same day, from the same dining room chair. It can be done and I have made sure that my colleagues on the magistrates’ Bench have had training on how to behave when doing hearings via MS Teams or Zoom. In fact, we have a retired magistrate who is a former TV producer. It is very interesting to be trained to do this properly, because it is very easy for standards to slip. For the Committee’s information, we are arranging further training entitled “Keep the bar high; don’t let standards slip”, because it is very easy for that to happen when one is working remotely. We support the instrument.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions to this short debate. I was particularly keen to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on open justice, and I respectfully endorse them. That is a principle we absolutely share.
I will say a brief word about online hearings, a point which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, picked up. I want to draw a distinction between the provisions in this instrument, which relate to broadcasting hearings to those watching, and online hearings, when the advocates or witnesses are appearing online, which are slightly different but related and important. I have spoken about that on a number of occasions. Online hearings certainly have their place and, more than that, are likely to be the future of civil and sometimes criminal justice going forward.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, it is critical to keep standards at the requisite level. I am not sure whether a counsel who hears the phrase “keep the bar high” from a magistrates’ bench would necessarily interpret it in the right way, although that probably lies well beyond my personal experience. As to an example of a case where a judge might say that the hearing should not be broadcast, it would be rare in the Competition Appeal Tribunal for this to happen. There may be cases where you had a vulnerable witness or cases involving children, but I suspect that it will be very much the exception rather than the rule. The critical point is that we allow the individual judge in a case to make that decision for themselves, a point that has been shared across the Committee.
There is other business before the Committee. I do not intend to take more time on this, but I invite the Committee to support this instrument.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2022.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its advice, which has helped to inform the order for consideration today. The advice, published on 20 November 2020, recommended that three drugs be moved from class C to class B of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The drugs are gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid, which is known as GHB; gamma-Butyrolactone, which is known as GBL; and 1,4-Butanediol, which is known as 1,4-BD. I will refer to them collectively as GHB and related substances, or GHBRS.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs recommended that all three substances be controlled under class B of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 because of their potential harm and the evidence of the prevalence of these drugs in the UK. GHBRS are central nervous system depressants. They have been used as recreational drugs, but they have also been weaponised to commit drug-facilitated sexual assault and other crimes. Although a misnomer, they are commonly referred to as date-rape drugs.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs provided wide-ranging advice on these substances. Prevalence of use increased steadily from 2005 to 2015 and has plateaued since 2015. Gamma-Butyrolactone and 1,4-Butanediol are converted to gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid on ingestion and are therefore similar in effect. There is evidence of an increasing number of deaths associated with GHBRS since the ACMD last considered the harms, including 27 recorded deaths in 2018. It was found that GHBRS can cause profound unconsciousness and that there is a high risk to users of overdose and death. Other severe effects include loss of emotional control, depression, paranoia, anxiety, aggression, and persistent cognitive impairment. There is also very strong evidence of GHBRS being used to facilitate crime, including in high-profile cases. They were used by the serial rapist Reynhard Sinaga, and the murderers Stephen Port and Gerald Matovu, to incapacitate their victims.
Clearly, it is right that we follow the advice of independent experts and tighten control on these substances. Moving them to class B will increase the maximum penalty for unlawful possession from two years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both, to five years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both. This will signal to the public that offences involving these substances are treated seriously and subject to the appropriate penalties, acting as a deterrent for their possession and supply. It will ensure that sufficient punitive measures are available to the courts and will mean that the police place a higher priority on action against offences involving these substances.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I should remind the Committee that a former partner of mine died from an accidental overdose of GHB.
I thank the Minister for introducing this order. I must admit to being in something of a quandary about how to approach it. On the one hand, I do not believe that reclassification of these drugs to class B is enough. On the other hand, the classification of drugs is largely irrelevant.
I have said before that the classification of drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act has very little credibility among those for whom it is most important—those who use controlled drugs. I do not know of anyone, particularly young people, who consider what class a drug is in before deciding whether to take drugs or what drugs to take before going on a night out, for example. Similarly, those addicted to controlled drugs pay no attention to the classification under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The reclassification of GHB and associated compounds from class C to class B, as the Minister has explained, further undermines the credibility of the system of classification, as it places GHB in the same class as cannabis. GHB is used to facilitate rape and to commit murder; it can result in sudden accidental death; and it is being moved into the same class as cannabis.
GHB is a colourless, odourless liquid that can easily be mixed unknowingly into someone’s drink, for example. It can and has been used, as the Minister said, as a so-called date-rape drug because, as the impact assessment shows, it can cause drowsiness and amnesia and the victim to slip into and out of unconsciousness. It is also rapidly eliminated from the body, making it very difficult to definitively identify in criminal cases.
But it is worse than that. Taken in small quantities over a period of time, it may not cause critical short-term effects but, over a long period, it can cause mental and social health harms. People can easily become psychologically addicted. GHB is one of the few drugs from which people can die while trying to withdraw from taking it. It is very easy to overdose, as my former partner found out.
Michael apparently took some GHB before going to a party. Forgetting he had already taken some, he took another dose on arrival, realised his mistake and made himself sick to get the second dose out of his system. He was allowed to fall asleep and began to snore. At that point in the evidence, which was being given by the host of the party at the inquest into Michael’s death, the coroner interrupted and said that snoring was a sign of the respiratory system shutting down and, for future reference, was the time to call an ambulance. Michael had not been breathing for about an hour before, the hosts say, they realised and called an ambulance. I was holding Michael’s mother’s hand as we listened to the evidence at the inquest.
GHB is widely used in connection with so-called chemsex, where parties are held and drugs are consumed to overcome inhibitions that some have to such an extent that they cannot have sex without these drugs. GHB is often taken in combination with other drugs such as crystal meth, making it increasingly difficult for some to keep track of how much GHB they have actually taken. As I have described, it is very easy to go from conscious to unconscious to respiratory failure to death, whether accidentally or when GHB is weaponised by sexual predators.
Noble Lords will recall Stephen Port, who was convicted of murdering four young men by administering GHB. In terms of risk to life, if ever any drug should be classified as class A, this is it. My understanding is that, in addition to reclassification, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs advised the Home Office that a public information campaign was necessary to raise awareness of the dangers these drugs pose, as well as better data collection, such as compulsory testing for GHB in post-mortems where death is unexplained, and increased support and rehabilitation for users and those addicted. In addressing the London Assembly this morning, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner talked about Stephen Port and how, in all cases of sexual assault, they now conduct tests for GHB, even when no complaint is made. I would welcome any information the Minister has about whether that will be extended to post-mortems.
Can the Minister also explain what other measures the Home Office is taking to address—to quote the ACMD—
“strong new evidence of significant harm due to the criminal use of GHBRS, including murder, drug-facilitated sexual assault … and robbery … a marked increase in deaths … physical, mental and social health harms”?
Reclassifying GHB as a class B drug and updating the information on FRANK is simply not good enough.
The reclassification of cannabis from class C to class B was ineffective in terms of harm and use reduction. GHB is characterised here as being only as dangerous as cannabis. It was only when there was publicity about the health dangers of prolonged, excessive use of genetically modified cannabis, the potential to trigger schizophrenia in those with a propensity to it and the harm to the developing brains of young people that cannabis use declined. Education, not criminalisation, caused that reduction in use.
We have seen people who have fallen unconscious from taking GHB being dragged from dancefloors on to the streets to save nightclub operators’ licences. We have seen people hesitate to call ambulances or otherwise seek medical help for fear of being prosecuted for illegal possession of drugs. Criminalisation of drug misuse costs lives. Education on the effects of these substances is where the emphasis should be, not on rearranging the deckchairs on the “Titanic” war on drugs.
If GHB is to be illegal and is to be reclassified, it should be a class A drug. To classify it as equivalent to cannabis is quite obviously ridiculous—but the most important step is a public information campaign to ensure that people are aware of how dangerous GHB and related substances are, despite it being classified by this order only as class B.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
We support the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and thank the Minister for introducing so comprehensively the details of the changes proposed. Just to remind the Committee, I sit as a magistrate and regularly deal with drug-related matters in all the jurisdictions—in youth, family and adult criminal matters. It is normal for me, when dealing with these matters, to notice that the street names of drugs change, the names recorded on the charge sheets change, and the strengths of the drugs that we are dealing with change as well. It is a moving picture; I understand the purpose of this amendment, but I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that in a sense the system is always playing catch-up with what is happening with illegal drug use.
I thought it might be interesting for the Committee if I told an anecdote about when I was sitting as a magistrate in Horseferry Road about 10 years ago. We were in a regular criminal court and we had a young man in front of us—he was an adult in his early 20s. He had his father in court, and a privately paid lawyer, and he was pleading guilty to possession of a class B drug. That drug had only recently been made illegal; it had previously been a legal drug, and he had become addicted to it. He had dropped out of college and been put on a rehabilitation programme. He was doing better—but he had been picked up in possession of the drug, and that was the matter that he was pleading guilty to.
What nobody else in the court knew except me was that our legal adviser, before she became a legal adviser, was a nurse. She googled the drug referred to and asked us to retire. She told us that the drug that he had been found in possession of was a date-rape drug, which we had been told he was addicted to. In fact, we had had it presented to us that he was a victim in unfortunate circumstances. So we had to decide how to proceed, given that potentially, given the information that we had been given, it was a much more serious matter than simple possession of a drug.
In the end, we sentenced the man for simple possession, but we got the legal adviser to go and tell the young man’s lawyer—not his father—that we knew what that drug could be used for. When we went back into court and sentenced him—and he would only have got a fine, or something—we made it very clear that there can be other connotations for people having these drugs, and things can get much more serious. In fact, the legal adviser suggested that we might send the matter up to Crown Court, although we did not do that in the end.
I support these amendments. I know that there are limitations with what is happening, and I understand the points that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made—and I agree with his points about education being better than criminalisation, although I part company with him on a number of other aspects of legalisation of certain types of drugs. Nevertheless, I welcome these amendments to the drugs Act.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their very constructive points during this debate. The case example that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, gave was very pertinent to how we might approach drug use in society: seeing someone as a user but also as a potential victim. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, may have told me before his moving story about the tragic consequences of using a drug that, as he said, is not only hard to detect once taken but very difficult to detect post-mortem because of how quickly it clears from the body. If someone is in a slightly confused state, having taken it and forgotten that they have taken it, the danger is compounded. I thank them both very much for those stories. On what further work will be done on post-mortem, which in itself is a difficult thing to determine, I will get more information if I can, but we recognise the difficulty of detecting post-mortem. I assume that people whose intent is criminal exploit those difficulties.
As I said earlier, the ACMD recommended that GHBRS be moved from class C to class B. We hope that reclassification will benefit the public by reflecting our new understanding of the harms of those drugs. Increased penalties for offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act, coupled with the effect of the regulation in restricting supply, are expected to deter and prevent crime, but I take the points of both noble Lords about education. The Government’s drugs strategy is not a simple one of legislation; it is about support, education and moving “from harm to hope”, as the long-term strategy on drugs we have in place is called. That symbolises what the Government are trying to do.
On investment—putting our money where our mouth is—we are investing another £780 million to rebuild drug treatment and recovery services, including for young people and offenders, with new commissioning standards to drive transparency and consistency. Strengthening the evidence base for how best to deter use, ensuring that adults change their behaviour, alongside targeted activity to prevent young people from getting into this lifestyle in the first place, is really important.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said that young people do not pay attention to classification—I totally agree—so how would reclassification meet our ambition in the drugs strategy? We need to take a better approach; I think we have all recognised that. No matter who you are and where you use, you should be encouraged to change your behaviour and to face consequences if you do not. We all know that recreational drug use fuels criminal markets—they thrive on it—which has a terrible impact on those involved in supply and the communities in which it takes place.
The noble Lord also asked me about treatment available to support users of GHB. As I said earlier, there is now significant investment in treatment, which will mean that everyone who needs help with their drug use will be able to get it. Substance misuse commissioners and sexual health commissioners will be supported to work together to improve pathways between services for those who use drugs in a chemsex context, where GHB is of course frequently used, and local authorities will continue to play their role here.
On challenging the Government’s approach to drugs, we are clear that it is anchored in education and effective consequences to reduce demand, tough and intelligent enforcement to restrict supply, and evidence-based treatment to aid recovery and co-ordinated global action. As we know, the problem is a global one.
On discriminatory effects and the groups that are disproportionately affected by tougher penalties, I refer now to the MSM community. The ACMD says in its report that men who have sex with men are the largest user group of GHBRS—I do not think that is disputed. They are often taken in the context of chemsex. The changes in classification and scheduling will disproportionately impact this group. However, the potential benefits of reducing the prevalence and the harms from GHBRS will also benefit the group.
As both noble Lords have said, legislative changes in and of themselves will not act in isolation. We expect to respond shortly to the ACMD’s educational and treatment-based recommendations, which will be delivered by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. We hope that this will help to counteract any unintended impact of the reclassification of GHBRS.
I hope that I have answered both noble Lords’ questions. I am sure that if I have not, they will intervene on me. If there are no further points, I commend the regulation to the Committee.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive explanation. I was not suggesting at all that it would be wrong if this change had a disproportionate impact on a particular section of society. My main concern is that, to me, with the knowledge that I have of controlled drugs and the way they are used, I cannot think of anything more dangerous in terms of risk to life than GHB and the related substances. Perhaps the ACMD felt that it could not do two steps at once—in other words, it could not go from class C to Class A, because that might undermine its previous assessment of the drug. As I explained, I understand that the long-term effects of cannabis can be quite damaging to people’s mental health, but there is not the same danger of cannabis being weaponised to commit sexual offences, for it to be used as a murder weapon, as it was in the Stephen Port case, or as an overdose resulting in immediate and sudden death. Yet it is being reclassified as the same class as cannabis when it appears to me, from my experience, to be far more dangerous than cannabis. Does the noble Baroness have anything to say on that point?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I did not for a moment think that the noble Lord was objecting to the disproportionate effect on certain groups. When the ACMD considers things, it considers them very carefully and keeps them under review. I have tried to outline concern today about the stigma caused by increasing the classification on those who use the drugs, but also the desire to help people with the terrible problems that these drugs can cause. I am sure that it will keep it under review, and the noble Lord may well be right: it may recommend further classification in due course.
House of Lords
Water Industry Reform
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Haskel
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reform the United Kingdom’s water industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, this Government have made improving water quality a priority and have introduced reforms to enable that. The Environment Act has modernised water resource planning, introduced new duties to reduce storm overflow discharges, and made drainage planning statutory. The draft strategic policy statement to Ofwat has set a new course so that the industry can deliver more for the environment, customers and the climate. If we do not see improvements, we will take further action.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Environment Act. This Act is ineffective because it has no set timetable or targets to clean up our water. There has been a stream of reports calling for action, all of which call for infrastructure investment by the water companies and for more action and less complacency from the regulator. But, after increasing dividends and company debt, most water companies are in no position to carry out the necessary investment. Indeed, one industry executive said that the water companies were spending more on maintaining their assets, which are deteriorating, rather than replacing them. Does the Minister agree that this situation is a danger to public health and risks creating our very own homegrown pandemic?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Water companies have invested £160 billion in a modernised infrastructure. I disagree with the noble Lord about the Environment Act; it sets out a very clear direction of travel for water companies and others to clean up our waterways. But I refer him to the strategic policy statement to Ofwat. It has been released in draft and will be laid before the House in the next few weeks, and it will add to it targets for improvement.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, our basement flat in Westminster has twice been flooded seriously with sewage-contaminated water as a result of the water companies opening their sluice gates at times of heavy rainfall. The cost of renovating the flat and its contents has been expensive. Going forward, surely property owners need to have renovation costs financed by the relevant water companies.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am sorry to hear about the noble Lord’s problems. The overflows into the Thames are activated by relatively small amounts of rainfall. That is why £1.4 billion is being spent on a new super-sewer, which will deal with those sewage overflows and, I hope, limit the problems to Thames Water bill payers.
Earl Howe (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, has indicated his wish to speak virtually, and I think this might be a convenient time.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, Seven Trent and Wessex Water told Gloucestershire county councillors that they had no plans to ever stop dumping sewage, while Thames Water said it intended to stop only by 2050. None of the companies believes that the Government’s Environment Act will change their behaviour. Is this another example of how arrogance, indolence and ignorance freeze the government machine, while our rivers are polluted with raw sewage and water companies rake in the profits? Should we not freeze water bills and directors’ pay and ban dividends until the problem is stopped once and for all?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I believe the noble Lord will find that, if these water companies think that the provisions of the Environment Act and in the statutory policy statement by Ofwat mean that they will be able to carry on releasing sewage at the current level, they have a very serious other think coming.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Question relates to the United Kingdom dimension. He will also be aware that water is largely devolved as far as Wales is concerned. In fact, the main provider in Wales is a not-for-profit company. In these circumstances, will he ensure that any new policy initiatives he might be contemplating will be undertaken only after full discussion with the Welsh Government to ensure that there is co-ordination, particularly along an open border, where there is responsibility on both sides by both authorities?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. Many water issues cross the border, not least the polluting of rivers on either side of the border. They require a very joined-up approach, not just between Governments but between water companies and farming interests.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that our rivers are an absolute disgrace and the worst in Europe? Do we not need to sack the regulator and his group, introduce new legislation and have a Government who back the regulator?
Lord Benyon (Con)
This Government and the regulator are absolutely determined to see an improvement to the situation of sewage being released into rivers. Part of that problem is releases of sewage from water companies, part of it is from farming and part of it is from point-source pollution. It requires a holistic approach. I refer the noble Lord to the statutory policy statement, which has been released in draft and will be laid before Parliament in the next few weeks. It will give him the assurance I think he requires.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, there also needs to be proper enforcement regarding water quality. The Environment Agency has seen its funding cut by 60% in recent years, reducing its capacity to carry out monitoring and enforcement activity. Prosecutions for environmental crime in England plummeted by 86% between 2000 and 2019 and the number of charges also fell by 84%. Does the Minister recognise that, if the Government truly are serious about tackling pollution in our rivers, they must fund the Environment Agency properly so that it can do the job it was set up to do?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Defra and its agencies received an extra £4.3 billion in the latest spending review in October 2021. We have made extra budget available to the Environment Agency for 50 extra inspectors to be recruited in this financial year to visit farms and other sources of water pollution to ensure that action is taken.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, what has come of the proposal for a national water grid, which seems to have been pending for a very long time?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord raises an important point. Under the way we economically value water, it is extremely expensive to move it around the country, from areas that have a lot of rain to those that do not. That economic modelling will change very quickly if we continue to have serious droughts, and we have to remain open to moving water between water company areas in a much more joined-up way.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend pay tribute to Yorkshire Water, which has invested in such a grid for the region? Will he also ensure that, where appropriate, water companies and drainage authorities will be part of the catchment management system?
Lord Benyon (Con)
There is a sort of grid, which allows you to move water from Yorkshire as far down as Ipswich, using a variety of different means. Following the disastrous situation in the early 2000s, Yorkshire Water created a much more balanced infrastructure, which has worked for it and needs to be copied by others.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this Government seem to be suffering from inaction in many departments at the moment, for various reasons. This subject has cropped up on numerous occasions in your Lordships’ House. Are the Government really serious about doing something about it, or are they simply going through the motions?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I have heard that one before. This is a very important matter for my department. I can assure the noble Lord that I and my fellow Ministers talk to each other about this on a weekly basis. A whole range of measures is being brought forward, and together these measures will continue to make a difference. What we need most of all is continued investment in the infrastructure, some of which goes back to Edwardian times and does not reflect the fact that large numbers of new houses and businesses now exist and require that infrastructure to service them.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer, as set out in the register. Can the Minister please confirm that any measures to reform the UK water industry are taken after full consultation with all the interested parties in that industry? The Environment Agency’s interpretation of the 2018 farming rules for water did not do that, and as a result farming companies, water companies and microbiologists all witnessed damage to the environment, their businesses and so on. Please can there be consultation?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I entirely understand the point the noble Lord makes; that measure was brought in in a less than perfect way. But we have a problem; we have rivers that need to be cleaned up. Government tries to sit between, on the one hand, requiring business to do something and, on the other, supporting the regulator. We hope we get it right, but we do not always.
Rape Trials
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to increase the proportion of rape allegations that go to trial.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, the rape review action plan has committed to transforming the criminal justice system to tackle systemic failures on rape. In that, we demonstrate our commitment to transparency and public accountability throughout. Our aims are to improve victims’ experience of the criminal justice system, to increase the numbers of victims who stay engaged in the process and to build better and stronger cases so that more people are charged and, ultimately, more rapists go to prison.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I will just remind the House how appalling the statistics are: only 1.6% of reported rape allegations result in a court case. As the Minister said, the Government’s response has been to put in place the rape review action plan. On 22 January the CPS published its latest statistics regarding the handling of rape. Five categories of data were published; they showed either a flatlining of the data or a modest improvement. Is the Minister happy with that improvement, or does he think he should put in place some targets?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the data that the noble Lord has placed before the House. I suggest that it is not so much a matter of imposing targets as one of following through on the Government’s approach, which will see an increase in spending over the lifetime of this Parliament and involve more special training for police officers and prosecutors in this area. Finally, although, as I have said, I acknowledge the statistics that the noble Lord has placed before your Lordships, it is important to recognise that the data is necessarily retrospective and relates to times before the Government’s actions, as set out in the action plan, commenced.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that, in the Attorney-General’s regular meetings with the Director of Public Prosecutions, she will hold the director to account for the chilling effect of recent changes in CPS charging guidance in relation to rape? Surely it is in the hands of the DPP that the awful statistics can be improved and victims given a proper hearing.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance. I remind the House that, of course, as the noble Lord is well aware, we are dealing not simply with the role of government but with necessarily independent bodies, upon which our constitution relies—it relies on the independence of the judiciary and of prosecutors—but I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, the End Violence Against Women Coalition reported that, as a result of funding cuts in recent years, two-fifths of police forces in England and Wales no longer have a specialist rape and serious sexual offences unit, thereby losing vital expertise in investigating and prosecuting sexual violence. At a time when rape prosecutions remain at their lowest level on record and rape survivors face some of the longest delays to their cases reaching trial of any victims of crime, are the Government serious about prioritising tackling sexual violence against women and girls?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, this Government are indeed serious about addressing the matters that the noble Baroness has placed before the House. I am able to give the noble Baroness some assurances in relation to figures. We are on track to recruit a further 20,000 police officers by the end of this Parliament. Over 100 prosecutors have undertaken induction training on rape and serious sexual offences—RASSO as it is known—while 674 prosecutors have been trained in a suspect-centred approach; that means focusing the investigation on the suspect and shifting away from the idea that it is the function of the police somehow to challenge the complainer’s account of events. Furthermore, by the end of this financial year, 176 prosecutors will have been trained and skilled in the assessment of the impact of trauma on memory. All these measures will enhance the ability of the system to address these extremely serious crimes.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging the issue of resources in relation to sexual offences, in particular, and for the other commitments that he has made, but does he agree that the culture of misogyny in our police service is leading women not to have the confidence they need to come forward? I refer noble Lords to reporting overnight of the case of the Nottingham academic who was strip-searched in police custody in circumstances that can be described only as a sexual assault.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the expression “misogyny”, and the extent, meaning and parameters of that expression, are currently under consideration. Beyond that I do not intend to provide any further answer.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, what are the chances of investigating and prosecuting serious sexual offences when 70% of victims are regarded at the time of the attack as vulnerable, sometimes due to alcohol and sometimes to age or mental illness? This means that the prosecution decisions can be quite difficult when the account of the victim is regarded as inconsistent. We never know how juries accept their evidence, and we never have any research into how juries reach their verdicts. I wonder whether this area is something on which the Government would consider instigating proper research to find out what it is that influences a jury. It is not always the things that we believe make a difference.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I can tell the House that there is work currently under way by the Law Commission to address misconceptions in this field. The expression often used is “rape myths”, although I am not sure that I am especially fond of that. I think “misconceptions” better addresses and refers to the topic raised by the noble Lord.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that modern technology has, ironically, made rape a more difficult crime to investigate because it depends on victims having confidence in the process? Many young women are not prepared to allow their cell phones to be seized and trawled through for months on end by the police. What are the Government doing to address this dilemma without compromising justice?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely important point. In relation to the end-to-end review and action plan, which the Government have published, we have set up a means by which people coming forward with complaints of rape can be confident that they will receive mobile telephones, so they will not be deprived of their use or their contacts and data. At the same time, we will be doing our best to strengthen the investigation of crimes so that complainers do not feel that their personal lives are being unduly pried into or that their rights to privacy are disturbed.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister like to have another go at answering the question put to him by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, leaving aside the question of misogyny but answering the question about culture?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The culture of the police is an extremely broad topic. I regret if I seemed to have ducked the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, but these are extremely wide issues, which lie beyond the remit of my ability to answer today.
Wet Wipes: Disposal
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to regulate the disposal of wet wipes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
We have launched a call for evidence exploring options to tackle the issues caused by wet wipes. We are seeking views on mandatory flushability standards, mandatory labelling to indicate how wipes should be disposed of, an extended producer responsibility scheme, and a ban on wet wipes containing plastic, with exemptions for medical purposes. Responses to the call for evidence will inform our next steps.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise that wet wipes are part of the consultation mentioned by the Minister, but given the enormous amount of damage that they do, both to the environment and in causing sewer blockages, and given too that there is cross-party support for a ban in both Houses of Parliament, will the Government bring forward measures very soon, either by secondary legislation under the Environment Act or by giving government time and support to the recent Bill presented in the House of Commons by Fleur Anderson MP?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The Government wish to reflect the cross-party support for action on this, and will be moving quickly, following this call for evidence and the analysis of it. We are, in spirit, behind the Bill that the noble Baroness talked about, but we think there are more complications that we want to iron out before we bring forward legislation. If she can be patient with the response to the call for evidence, I think we will all find ourselves on the same page.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, anyone who saw the BBC “Panorama” programme last April about river pollution will remember how much of the riverbed of the Thames was covered in a layer of plastic wet wipes and other domestic products. Have the Government made any assessment of the effect on the health of our rivers from this very unpleasant layer of domestic plastic waste that covers so much of our riverbeds?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Like every Member of this House, I was repulsed by the fatberg found under the streets of London a few months ago, which was largely created out of wet wipes. The Marine Conservation Society says that wet wipes were the third most common type of litter found on beaches in Great Britain in 2020 and that 93% of the material that causes sewer blockages comes from wet wipes, so there is an urgency in dealing with this issue. We really want to get rid of the plastic that exists within wet wipes and to make sure that parent groups’ fears are alleviated, but we also do not want to cause other environmental problems by replacing plastic with other materials that would then be damaging to the environment in how they were harvested. There are complications that we need to deal with, but I share the noble Duke’s concerns.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has just said that this matter is urgent but he has also asked us to be patient. We know that, in addition to what the noble Duke has said about blockages in sewers piling up on our riverbanks and foreshores, it is costing water companies about £100 million a year to clean up these blockages and the pollution, and those costs are being passed on to the consumer. It is not a question of being patient; this is a very particular issue. We know that there are sustainable non-plastic alternatives so I cannot understand why it is taking the Government quite so long to process this when there are alternatives and the issue needs urgent action now. Can he reassure us that there is urgency in the actions that he is taking?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I hope I can. This issue is an absolute priority for us and fits in very well with a string of measures that the Government have taken in recent years to tackle plastics and the pollution effects that they have caused. In some cases the plastics in wet wipes are polyester, in some cases they are viscous—that is, they bind the fabric together—and sometimes they are spun into it.
Concerns have been raised by health organisations that wish to continue to use wet wipes because they see them as fundamental to hygiene in hospitals and other places. I hope that this year we will find a solution that reflects the results of our call for evidence, that we will move forward and that everyone supporting the Bill in the other place and here, and everyone who shares my concerns about this pollution problem, will find a solution that we can all be happy with.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, with 11 billion wet wipes being used every year in this country and 90% of them containing plastic, the public are understandably in need of better and clearer information. Indeed, the flushable standards are voluntary. Can the Minister reassure the House that the flushable standards and the lack of use of plastic will be an urgent priority? Can he give us any timeline for when that might happen?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Currently, Water UK defines plastic as
“synthetic organic material (e.g. petro chemical derived plastic fibres)”.
Water UK has said that that Fine to Flush, the standard that it is applying, contains the flexibility to change within the evolving definition of plastics and that the standard is awarded only for a two-year to three-year period to enable it to be up to date. The Government are working with the industry to find solutions, but ultimately it is for the Government to regulate and we will do so.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that “biodegradable” has become a bit of a weasel word as time has gone on and that it is now a very powerful bit of marketing language that does not always properly describe what you have to look at the small print to find out, which is that things that are biodegradable sometimes also contain plastic? Can he assure the House that the language used in marketing products will not be misleading in that way?
Lord Benyon (Con)
There are many products that we were all told years ago were biodegradable but have now discovered are not, or which may be biodegradable to the eye but break down into microplastics. That is the problem with wet wipes: very often the material may disappear but the plastic is the problem and continues to cause problems in our environment. The noble Baroness is absolutely right.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the principle that the polluter will pay is actually passed down to the producers of these items and they will ultimately be picking up the bill? Would the Minister like to speculate on just how that would improve the development of acceptable replacements?
Lord Benyon (Con)
It is a very similar philosophical point to that raised by disposable nappies. These are created by manufacturers but used by all of us who have children. We need to find a way of giving a clear direction to the industry that one particular type of product will no longer be allowed. Then the industry will innovate and find affordable solutions that the consumer can use. That is the perfect sweet spot to hit when you are trying to regulate against these measures. The precautionary principle is also vital. When talking about biodegradable waste, if there is uncertainty in what we are doing, sometimes we just have to take the precautionary approach.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, plastics and wet wipes have an impact on our fishing industry and marine environment—on both the catching and the processing sectors. In view of the impact on our hospitality industry and wider society, can the Minister provide us with a timetable that will indicate the implementation of the regulations and an acceptance of the Bill going through the other place that will diminish and eradicate the impact of plastics on our land and marine environments?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We will be working with the proposer of this Bill, Fleur Anderson, to make sure that she understands what we are trying to do alongside her Bill. There are no state secrets here. We will be sharing all the data we get as a result of this call for evidence. We can inform your Lordships about when we are bringing forward measures within the provisions of the Environment Act or other forms of legislation as quickly as possible, recognising the urgency that everybody feels.
Ukraine: Military and Non-military Support
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Walney
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further (1) military, and (2) non-military, support they will offer to the government of Ukraine to deter the threat of an invasion by Russian forces.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, we unequivocally support Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and that is why the United Kingdom has provided considerable military support to the Government of Ukraine through Operation Orbital and the assistance announced by the Defence Secretary on 17 January, as well as a range of economic assistance measures and diplomatic engagement.
Lord Walney (CB)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. The Prime Minister has rightly signalled today that UK forces will be part of NATO’s defence of its borders, but surely the focus must continue to be on increasing support for Ukraine itself to deter this heinous act of aggression. In addition to punishing economic sanctions, will the Government make clear that lethal military support for our partner will be increased and ongoing in the event of further incursion?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that under Operation Orbital we have offered a range of military support since 2015. That is continuing. The recently announced ongoing package is a part of that. Another part of it is a maritime training initiative. We have a range of support measures and will continue to do everything we can to support Ukraine to defend itself if that becomes necessary.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, having been involved in many a deal with foreign nations over the donation of military equipment, all too often we supply that which we have in surplus as opposed to what the nation needs. Can my noble friend assure me that that will not be a limiting factor in this case and that any donations of further military kit will be done in co-ordination with our NATO allies?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Yes, I reassure my noble friend that any donations are made within the limitations of ensuring that we have residual supplies for our normal operational needs. These donations—he is quite correct to emphasise that that is what they are— are specific: to aid self-defence if that need should arise.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the UN charter authorises the Security Council and General Assembly to take action against any nation that jeopardises world peace. What discussions have we had with our men at the UN to see if any action is going to take place? While understanding that the Security Council would be vetoed by Russia, there are other actions that might help and would show the opprobrium in which the world holds Putin’s actions.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord will understand that there has been a range of diplomatic and military engagement by the United Kingdom Government, not least by my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary. As to whether that extends to speaking to the men—or, may I say, women—in the United Nations, I do not have specific information, but I can assure him that the widest possible diplomatic activity has been embarked upon.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Walney, suggested that we should be thinking about direct support for Ukraine, but what support are we also giving to our allies in NATO, particularly in the Baltic states? We obviously have a presence in Estonia—are we increasing our support there? What conversations have Her Majesty’s Government had with Bulgaria and Romania, whose position in NATO has been challenged by Russia?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Obviously, the noble Baroness will realise that the focus of attention at the moment is on the aggressive and unacceptable behaviour of President Putin in relation to a particular state: Ukraine. We continue as members of NATO to make our full contribution to the forward presence in the Baltic. That has been a very well received initiative which we continue to support.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
In gathering together a robust alliance against Russian threats and bullying, will my noble friend assure us that we will include the rising and great powers of Asia and the Middle East, because they are the ones whose voices Russia will listen to most closely?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
There has been a wide programme of engagement, not least by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, with colleagues across the globe, but also by the Foreign Secretary. There has been a desire to ensure that we canvass as wide a position of views as possible. Everyone understands that the proposals and activity of President Putin are completely unacceptable. There is a concerted voice asking him please to de-escalate.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is important for Russia to know that Her Majesty’s Opposition stand fully with the UK Government in the actions they are taking with respect to Ukraine and the defence of its sovereignty, including the continuing military assistance, such as the defensive anti-tank weapons sent last week. These are worrying times for security in Europe, so can the Minister say more about the international diplomatic efforts to de-escalate? Can she also say something about the forthcoming visit by the Defence Secretary to Moscow and what he will be saying? Russia needs to know that we support a diplomatic solution, but we will be resolute in our defence of Ukraine and the security of our NATO allies.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord not just for his remarks but for their tenor, which is extremely helpful. The Secretary of State is going to meet with his Russian counterpart; that invitation has been accepted. Discussions are ongoing about timing and location. I am unable to say more about that at the moment, but concerted endeavour continues, as the noble Lord will be aware from the Prime Minister’s Statement in the other place earlier today. A very full range of activity was outlined, including engagement with major state leaders across the globe.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, Russia should be completely aware of the serious consequences of military intervention. Too much “Just you dare” talk can elicit the opposite reaction. Nations, like children, do not take kindly to being pushed into that position; they do not like to lose face, so we have to be very careful in the way we talk.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I would actually agree with the noble Lord, and observe that every effort has been made to invite Russia and President Putin to continue to engage. Whether that is through the NATO-Russia Council or direct communication from other global states, that initiative is there. But the problem arises because President Putin has amassed over 100,000 military on the borders of Ukraine. He has taken that decision, and that is what is causing the anxiety.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, if the Government decide to send further defensive weapons to Ukraine, will they seek access for RAF aircraft to German airspace? If not, why not?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that we do not comment on operational matters in detail, and he will understand that that has been a respected tradition for successive Governments, so I cannot comment on that specific detail. However, I can answer a question he asked me last week, to which I omitted to respond, on the allegation that Germany denied access to its airspace. Germany did not deny access, because the UK did not submit a request. There has been no dispute between the UK and Germany on the issue; in fact, the Defence Secretary has plans to visit Germany shortly to meet the Defence Minister.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
I declare my interest as trade envoy to Ukraine. Has not the United Kingdom given more support to Ukraine than any other European country, and should not some of our neighbours pull their socks up and do a little bit more to support Ukraine against Russia’s aggression?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister outlined earlier today in the other place, in fact, significant support has been forthcoming from other nations. As a prominent member of NATO—it being the umbrella under which the UK has been channelling a lot of its activity, along with the United States—there has been a recognition by member states that they need to flex their muscles and make their contribution. The evidence is that they are doing that, and we are very grateful to them.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, will the noble Baroness return to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, about the position of Germany in regard to Estonia, which has been trying to send munitions to Ukraine for its self-defence? When one NATO country stops another NATO country upholding freedom, liberty and democracy, what does that say about our position as an alliance? Also, what does it say when Germany offers instead to provide a field hospital to Ukraine?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I do not have any information on that precise point, but I undertake to investigate and respond to the noble Lord if I can.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, innocent civilians will pay the cost of political failure if the current tensions over Ukraine continue to escalate. The most important non-military support we can give Ukraine is to continue intense, robust dialogue. The Secretary of State for Defence explained this in the Statement he made last week, and I commend him for his willingness to meet with General Shoygu in Moscow. Does the noble Baroness not agree that if we are going to find a sustainable solution to this problem without further unnecessary deaths, we need to concentrate on diplomacy?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord speaks with authority and makes a very important point. He will be aware that the NATO approach over recent years has in fact been deterrence, dialogue and defence, and that is a sustainable way forward. It is certainly an approach this Government endorse, and it is the approach we are endeavouring to prosecute at the moment. We just hope that President Putin is hearing the entreaties being uttered and understands that there are very, very grave consequences to follow if he decides to pursue his proposals to invade Ukraine.
Coronavirus Grants: Fraud
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the expected cost of fraudulent claims made under the Coronavirus Grant Schemes.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this Question might seem familiar because it is the third time that we have asked it. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for coming to the House to answer this today.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Perhaps I should start by thanking my noble friend Lord Agnew for allowing me the opportunity to stand here today—
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I promise that I shall stay the course. Throughout this dreadful crisis that we have had to endure over the past two years, the Government’s number one priority has been to protect jobs and livelihoods while also supporting businesses and public services across the UK. We had to work particularly quickly to produce some generous packages to give the necessary support back in lockdown 1.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I hesitated because I was not sure if the noble Viscount had finished—because, again, he did not answer the Question. Whistleblowing is vital in exposing undesirable or unlawful conduct. The Government rightly expect others to operate to high standards but do not seem to be able to meet those standards themselves.
Yesterday, the serious frustrations of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, finally bubbled over, leading him to blow the whistle on his own colleagues as he departed. His lengthy statement yesterday exposed chaos and mismanagement across government, but it did not answer the question posed by my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. The Chancellor has gone AWOL, and, in his absence, although the noble Viscount did not give the figure today, other junior Ministers have insisted that putting the coronavirus fraud at £4.3 billion is too simplistic.
Taxpayers are footing the bill; your Lordships’ House and they deserve answers. If it is not £4.3 billion-worth of fraud, how much is it? If he has not got the answer today—I think noble Lords will understand why—can we at least be told when we will know and exactly how much of that the Treasury intends to write off?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
It is a slightly complicated picture, but the Government continue to work actively with the British Business Bank, lenders and fraud authorities to identify and address fraud risks and recover loans obtained fraudulently. On the noble Baroness’s question, the £4.3 billion figure is not recognised by HMRC; it is an inference made in the report by the Times, which I am sure the noble Baroness has read. The figure that was taken out of that was £5.8 billion, which was in the report and accounts of HMRC. Some £500 million, which was returned, should be deducted from that, so we think that there is £800 million to £1 billion to recover.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Was not the object of the loan scheme to enable existing companies to continue trading through the pandemic? If, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Agnew yesterday, banks paid out money to companies incorporated post Covid, and did so negligently, are we not entitled to revoke the 100% taxpayer guarantee?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Again, we should remember that, in lockdown 1—roughly from March to April 2020—there was a clear need for urgent action to encourage a greater take-up of different support measures. That is why we intervened to change the design of the bounce-back scheme to make it 100% backed, which led to £46 billion being sent to 1.5 million businesses. To take up my noble friend’s point, I am sure that lessons can be learned, but, at the time, it was imperative that the Government acted quickly.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, when Covid struck, HMRC stopped answering its fraud-reporting phone line—the phones just rang and rang. The alternative way of reporting fraud online required entering intrusive personal details that most people were afraid to provide. How much fraud does the Minister estimate has been unreported due to the Government’s attitude towards whistleblowers?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord’s question is focused on HMRC, but I can say that the expected losses to error and fraud in 2021 were £5.8 billion, and expected losses for 2021-22 will be published in due course. But a lot of work is going on in terms of recovery, and the expected recovery by HMRC is estimated to be between £1.3 billion and £1.5 billion.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, did the Government anticipate the potential use of existing ready-made off-the-shelf companies as instruments of fraud? Is it yes or no?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I think the answer has to be no. We had to move particularly quickly in very difficult circumstances. Of course, there is always a risk of fraud—all fraud is unacceptable, but there was a risk because we had to move quickly. As I say, there is a lot of work and, particularly from HMRC’s point of view, in the months and years ahead there is big scope to recover.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, fraud in government is rampant and is estimated at just under £30 billion—so writes the noble Lord in the Financial Times today. Why, in those circumstances, did the Government agree to drop the long-awaited economic crime Bill from next year’s legislatory list for Parliament to consider?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I do not have an answer to that; I will have to get an answer to the noble Lord. I say again that the schemes brought forward during those very difficult times were designed in response to a pronounced market failure, particularly with the UK’s smallest businesses struggling to access the finance that they needed to survive at the start of the pandemic. Voices from across the spectrum, including from the party opposite, were shouting at us to be sure that we acted quickly. We were already doing so, but we continued to do so.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I express sympathy for my noble friend: yesterday he took the letter and today he has drawn the short straw. Does he accept that this matter really is important now? This was an Answer to an Urgent Question in the other place, and it is important that we have a definitive Statement from the Government giving as many figures as possible. While I acknowledge that fraud is more difficult to detect than to denounce, we need to have these facts.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. As I alluded to earlier, HMRC and BEIS are working very hard in conjunction with the lenders to recover as much as we possibly can. I reiterate that the figures, as noble Lords will tell me, are big. We have paid out altogether more than £400 billion to support the economy. It is fair to say that to that extent it has been a great success, because the economy is in very good shape.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I listened to the debate yesterday, in which the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, indicated that some lenders were failing on fraud. Can the Minister say which lenders are failing on fraud?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I do not accept the premise that lenders are failing on fraud, and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, will know that I am not in a position to name individual lenders. However, lenders continue to work closely with the Government on counterfraud, including recovering £1.2 million on facilities identified as fraudulent so far. It is important that lenders are held accountable for taxpayers’ money, and all lenders continue to be subject to a robust audit process by the British Business Bank.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, two 30-second checks would have saved the Government billions of pounds. First, no one can open an ISA account without providing a national insurance number, but the Government did not require that information from anyone seeking furlough support. Secondly, all applicants for Covid loans should have been required to provide an HMRC reference number. That would have killed off all dormant companies and offshore tax haven companies. Will the Minister please explain why these two 30-second checks were not applied?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
That is a very fair question and of course the sort of detailed question that I cannot answer. In terms of the fraud that we are looking to identify as part of the loan book, as of 17 December 2021 some £67 million worth of claims had been settled for the loan scheme. Of those, £13 million for 337 facilities had been flagged by lenders as suspected fraud. That is the sort of detail that we want to get into.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I too have sympathy with my noble friend the Minister, but will he reassure the House that the Government are looking seriously at the remarks and observations made by our noble friend Lord Agnew yesterday, particularly at any recommendations that he has for improving the situation and lessons learned at both BEIS and the British Business Bank, as well as at HMRC?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am aware that my noble friend has much experience in this area, linked to her work on pensions and in respect of HMRC. She is absolutely right: preventing fraud is incredibly important. We designed the schemes to prevent as much fraud as possible before any payments were made, while still quickly supporting those who needed them in unprecedented circumstances. For example, the first furlough payments went out within six days of being announced. We had to move quickly but, clearly, as she said, lessons will be learned.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, yesterday, my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton told the House that he was at odds with what he said was the Treasury relying on after-the-event audits, saying that this was “too reactive” and too late. Why have the Government relied on auditing lenders after the event instead of taking preventive steps beforehand?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
That is a good point. It is certainly something that I shall need to look into and I shall need to write to my noble friend about it. There is no question but that the auditing side is particularly important.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, the sorts of fraud that we heard so vividly described yesterday would have been a lot more difficult if directors’ identities had to be verified. The Government announced some 18 months ago that they would do that. When will they start insisting that Companies House verify identities of directors?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
That is certainly one of the lessons learned; I know that it is on the agenda to be looked at.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, what is the point of designating a Minister as Minister for Fraud Prevention and then not listening to his advice? If you were the Chancellor of the Exchequer, surely you would want to listen to that advice and take some account of it.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The House will have heard the question from the noble Lord, and I shall take it back.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, is it true that BEIS had only two officials working on counterfraud at the start of the scheme and they have so far refused to engage with the Cabinet Office?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My understanding is that BEIS has invested significantly in the expansion of its counterfraud function, in terms both of increased resource and, critically, of capabilities. A key role of its counterfraud function will be to embed a governed and risk-assessed approach throughout BEIS and the arm’s-length bodies.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, was accountable and did the right thing, but is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer ultimately responsible for this mess and should he not resign?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
No, he should not resign. I go back to the most fundamental point, which is that we had to act particularly quickly back in lockdown 1 to support businesses. As a result, we put in the £400 billion package of economic support that I referred to earlier. That protected more than 14.5 million jobs and thousands of businesses. It is a great credit to the Chancellor that he took those bold steps.
Lord Judge (CB)
Has a police investigation into these frauds started? Has the Serious Fraud Office been involved?
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, as we seek to claw back money misspent over Covid, can the Minister tell us whether those who benefited from fast-track VIP PPE contracts and delivered unfit goods will be paying back the money?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
On PPE, we acknowledge the severity of these claims, and the DHSC takes its responsibilities around due diligence extremely seriously. Of course, this goes back a bit further. As the DHSC has recently set out, all offers that come to the mailbox are triaged by an official from the high-priority appraisals team to be processed and responded to.
Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Entry to Venues and Events) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall
That the Regulations laid before the House on 15 December 2021 be approved.
Relevant documents: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument). 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 January.
Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 November 2021 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 January.
Data Protection Act 2018 (Amendment of Schedule 2 Exemptions) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 December 2021 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 January.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Tuesday 25th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 95-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (24 Jan 2022)
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, it may be helpful for me to say a few words about Third Reading amendments. In line with the procedure agreed by the House, yesterday evening the Public Bill Office advised the usual channels that Amendment 1 on the Marshalled List for Third Reading today falls outside the guidance in the Companion on Third Reading amendments. The Clerk of Legislation advised as follows:
“In my view, this amendment falls clearly outside the guidance. The issue was fully debated and decided on a vote at Report. The Minister was asked to reconsider and come back at Third Reading; he clearly and repeatedly declined (see cols 1947-50). In my view, the amendment is not addressing an uncertainty; it would reopen the issue and significantly change what the House decided.”
On the basis of that advice, the usual channels and the Convener of the Cross-Bench Peers are recommending to the House that Amendment 1, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, should not be moved. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord, when the time comes, not to move his amendment.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, before we move on to the amendments, I want to put on record a few remarks about the position of the Bill in relation to devolution. The great majority of the provisions in the Bill apply to England and Wales; a number also apply to Scotland and/or Northern Ireland. Throughout the preparation and passage of the Bill we have been working closely with each of the devolved Administrations and I pay tribute to officials and Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for their constructive engagement and support.
There are provisions in the Bill which engage the legislative consent process in the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am pleased that the Scottish Parliament has issued legislative consent on the advice of the Scottish Government in respect of those provisions which relate to devolved matters in Scotland. Just last week, Senedd Cymru considered two legislative consent Motions and, on the recommendation of the Welsh Government, agreed to legislative consent to one of these Motions but rejected the other Motion. I am pleased to say that the LCM agreed by the Senedd gave legislative consent to all the measures in the Bill which, in the view of the UK Government, engaged the LCM process in the Senedd itself. In addition, the LCM passed by the Senedd also covered the measures in the Bill relating to the increase in the maximum penalty for assaulting an emergency worker and the extraction of information from electronic devices. In the view of the UK Government, these measures related strictly to reserved matters and therefore did not engage the LCM process or, indeed, require legislative consent.
Turning to the second Motion put forward by the Welsh Government, the Senedd declined to give its legislative consent to certain provisions in the Bill relating to criminal damage to memorials, public order and unauthorised encampments. I therefore want to put on record that, in the view of the UK Government, these measures again relate to reserved matters and therefore did not engage the LCM process, or indeed require legislative consent.
The Northern Ireland Assembly has already agreed to a legislative consent Motion in respect of certain measures in the Bill that engage the LCM process. That Motion did not, however, cover the Bill’s provisions relating to the extraction of information from electronic devices, which, in part, also engage the LCM process. I understand that the Northern Ireland Executive have now agreed to bring forward a supplementary LCM in respect of these measures, and that is due to be considered by the Assembly shortly.
Clause 3: Required life sentence for manslaughter of emergency worker
Amendment 1
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“(c) manslaughter in circumstances where—(i) the death was not caused by dangerous driving or driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, and(ii) but for causing death or serious injury to the emergency worker, the unlawful act would have attracted a maximum sentence of less than five years imprisonment.”
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, on 24 November 2021, the Government announced in a press release that they were introducing into the Bill a provision that imposed a mandatory life sentence where a key emergency worker dies as a result of manslaughter. The introduction of that provision into the Bill was not the product of any debate in this House or the other place.
On 1 December 2021, the relevant amendment giving effect to the provision that there was a mandatory life sentence for manslaughter was tabled with the Table Office. On 8 December 2021, the matter was debated in this House. A large number of Peers spoke in the debate, including the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox, Lady Hamwee and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble Lords, Lord Beith, Lord Pannick, Lord Carlile and Lord Marks, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. They gave a variety of reasons why the provision had particular defects; there was a range of detailed complaints about it. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, spoke on behalf of the Labour Front Bench and indicated that Labour accepted the amendment in principle but that there were problems with the detail.
Before there was a vote on the amendment itself, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, suggested an adjournment to discuss the detail. There was a vote on that and it was rejected. There was then a vote on the amendment. Anybody fairly reading that debate would conclude that the principle of the amendment was agreed to—that this House agreed to the principle of a mandatory life sentence where an emergency worker dies as a result of manslaughter. However, nobody reading that debate could possibly conclude that the detail was treated as being resolved in relation to that.
One detail that affected many noble Lords was the consequence of having a mandatory life sentence for manslaughter if, for example, in a demonstration about, say, HS2, a demonstrator pushed over a police officer acting in the execution of his or her duty, who bumped their head—which would be common assault at worst—and died. That demonstrator would end up with a mandatory life sentence. They would not be saved from the mandatory life sentence by the exceptional circumstances defence.
This caused many people in the House considerable concern. I completely accept that the principle of the mandatory life sentence is no longer up for debate; that has been resolved. However, in conjunction with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti—to whom I pay tribute for her work on this issue—I have crafted an amendment that does not touch the detail of the provision, in the sense that it leaves in place the principle agreed but says that, where the offence you would otherwise be charged with does not attract a sentence of more than five years, you will not be susceptible to it. This is to deal with the one-knock manslaughter case. It leads to justice and reflects where the House is coming from. I strongly commend the amendment to the House and very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, will address the detail.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I rise in support of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who is, as your Lordships will appreciate, a former Lord Chancellor and law officer.
I reiterate that the Government came here on 8 December to commend Harper’s law to your Lordships’ House. However, in the course of that debate, to which I listened with great care, concerns were raised by every single group in your Lordships’ House about the potential unintended consequences that went beyond the Harper’s law case—a case of severe criminality that included dangerous driving that led to manslaughter. In particular, one-punch manslaughter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and many other noble Lords; as my noble and learned friend said, there was huge concern.
The reason why my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer is right to ventilate this today goes beyond what we believe about Harper’s law, mandatory sentences, or even judicial discretion. All of these should be of particular concern to this second, revising Chamber. The reason he is right to ventilate this issue is that where significant, potentially controversial and rights-impacting measures are to be introduced, it seems to me—and I believe to other Members of your Lordships’ House—that there should at least be two bites at the cherry. The measures should at least be looked at twice.
Without the aid of my noble and learned friend, what will happen is this: it is presented and debated once in the second Chamber—not even in the first Chamber and then the second Chamber. The vote is on the same day and that is it—because, let us be honest, this is not going to have detailed consideration when your Lordships’ amendments go back to the other place. Whatever my noble and learned friend decides—and with the greatest of respect, I totally agree with the clerk about the irregularity of his amendment in terms of procedure at Third Reading—we are forced into a gentlemen’s agreement that is not reciprocated in the other direction. There must be adequate time, and it seems to me that, going forward, any significant and controversial measure must at least be looked at twice, so that there can be an opportunity to ventilate, study it, and correct any potential glaring, unintended consequences.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I came cold to this debate, as it were, to hear what was to be said. I am certainly not an expert on the law, but I have had quite a bit to do with the Companion over the years, and I remember vividly a time when it was quite routine, on Third Reading, to present amendments that clearly should have been debated earlier. The authorities of the House at the time—and I may have been part of that—decided that we needed to tighten up the circumstances in which amendments could be laid at Third Reading. But—and this is a huge “but”, which my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has already dealt with—it was always assumed that there would be flexibility in the decision about the admissibility of amendments at Third Reading.
There were occasions—I would have come armed with them if I had anticipated this debate—when the usual channels would get together, during or after Report, and say, “Look we really can’t resolve this now, we need to put down an amendment at Third Reading”. Had it been challenged by either Front Bench or by anyone among the usual channels, that would have been resolved at that point. But nearly always, there was such a common-sense argument about, “Well, we’ll let this one go at Third Reading, the air needs to be cleared with this at Third Reading”, that it was agreed among the usual channels; it was never seen as completely Stalinist rule. Indeed, as my noble and learned friend has said, there is flexibility actually written into it. But I can say with confidence that this issue has been addressed in the past. It seems to me overwhelmingly the case, in the way my noble and learned friend described it, that quite clearly it should come within the auspices of the Companion, with the agreement of the usual channels, to be able to debate this hugely important issue at Third Reading.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I deeply regret the deformity to our law which results from the Harper amendment, made, as your Lordships know, for Third Reading. A mandatory life sentence for murder is one thing—indeed, one must recognise that, although entirely understandable, even that is questionable—but a mandatory life sentence for the manslaughter cases now spotlighted by the Harper amendment is really quite another.
I will content myself today by saying that not only may it cause a great injustice but it may be that, if one were a defence counsel in one of these cases, one would positively welcome Harper’s law and emphasise to the jury the awesome consequences of a conviction—consequences from which juries might well shrink. If this matter now goes back unamended to the House of Commons, I suggest that the other place may wish to reflect on those consequences. To pass as potentially unjust a law as this may prove to be counterproductive and a disaster for long-term justice.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I came into the debate late on the day we voted. I was really quite shocked to find what was being debated, and I listened very carefully to the contributions. Because I had not heard the Minister speak from the Dispatch Box, I did not take part in the debate; I felt that I would be criticised for coming in without having heard the full discussion. But I have practised in the criminal courts for 50 years—I was called to the Bar 50 years ago—so I can tell noble Lords that I was very alarmed at the content, and I echo what has just been said by one of our distinguished judges.
I really was concerned at the absence of discretion here. You could have such a range with this kind of manslaughter charge, and it is a shocking idea that a mandatory life sentence might be passed on someone very youthful in circumstances such as were described—you can never completely cover every possibility—by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, where the consequence of a tragedy could also lead to the double tragedy of somebody spending their life in prison because the sentence is mandatory. So I really do think we have to think twice here. Of course, we have to protect our public servants, but it is vital that we keep true to the idea that different cases require different responses, and that there have to be some exceptions.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, relatively new as I am to this House, I try to follow procedure and often fail to do so, and I am rightly reprimanded by fellow Peers when that happens and when mistakes are made. I am also very conscious of the democratic deficit of this House as unelected legislators. But, in relation to this issue, I was shocked by what I saw as an abuse of procedure by the introduction of this very important Harper’s law at such a late stage. I felt that that was bending the stick, to say the least, in terms of taking this House and its procedures seriously.
So, from my point of view, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has explained very well that this is a modest amendment that does not try to overturn the spirit of what was passed earlier on but is trying to deal with what I think are unintended consequences that the Government themselves do not want to see—that is not their intention. But Harper’s law is not a minor matter. Since that bit of a mess by which it was passed last time, I have had some sleepless nights imagining that I might in any way be responsible for the unintended consequences that I really do not think the Minister wants to happen, but which could happen unless the Bill is unamended—which is why I support this amendment in these unusual circumstances.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, as I understand the position, the amendment, without qualification, was pressed to and supported in a Division. The normal situation to deal with the kind of question that the noble and learned Lord mentioned would be to modify that amendment by another, but that, for reasons that may be quite understandable, did not happen. Therefore, the amendment that was passed was unqualified and accordingly, strictly speaking, the rule would be as the clerk has said.
However, this House has discretion in these matters. The rules that are laid down are the best we can think of for every circumstance, but not even we can think of all the possible circumstances. Therefore, the clerk is perfectly right in this case, but justice suggests that it would be wise for the House to realise that, in this particular situation, a modification of the original amendment was certainly raised in the debate, although it was not put formally into the procedure. Therefore, to do justice in this sort of case, it would be right for the House as a whole to agree, in this very special circumstance, that this matter should be dealt with.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I want to throw my considerable Green weight behind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. The Members opposite must realise in their hearts that this is unfair. I came into politics to make things fairer and this is not fair. It is unjust, as we have heard. Please let us debate it properly. I would vote for it—anyone can move it to a vote—and I hope it would pass.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He put this with beautiful simplicity and total clarity. He underlined the fact that, at the end of the day, we are answerable for what we decide. I deplore bringing in important things at the late stage of a Bill, which is why I withheld my vote when we were voting and not debating last week, because it made a mockery of Parliament. This is not making a mockery of Parliament; it is underlining the humanity of Parliament. I believe we should follow the sage advice of my noble and learned friend.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I apologise and feel rather guilty about the fact that I have neglected this Bill during its passage through the House because I was simply unable to attend and I decided not to participate. I came to listen to this debate to find out what was being put on the statute book, having followed it a little from a distance. This issue therefore took me completely by surprise. I have listened to the exchanges, but I thought I should add the voice of a third former Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice to the very eloquent case that has been made on both sides by the two others who share that position.
Personally, I do not approve very much of mandatory sentences, which have spread on to the statute book far too frequently in recent years in response to dramatic and publicised cases. I do accept the mandatory life sentence for murder; that is a very long-standing practice. We should deal with considerable care when we add new mandatory sentences in response to understandably emotional and dramatic cases that appear in the media but, unfortunately, responding to the media has become a feature of criminal justice Bills rather too frequently.
I rose simply to do what my noble friend Lord Cormack did: to add my voice, in so far as it helps at all, to those that have been put forward. This House would be letting itself down if it just let this go through by overstrict adherence to the normal procedures, which of course we should normally follow.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, this amendment has been tabled—in haste, it appears, as I will explain in a moment—at a very late stage in proceedings. It is not clear in its intention and appears to relate to an important category of people who I do not think any of the speakers in support of the amendment referred to. I will come back to that point.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who said that he came cold to this matter. Far from being cold, I have had a number of warm meetings with Members from all sides of this House on all matters relating to Ministry of Justice provisions in the Bill. I regret to say that until this amendment dropped without warning, half way through my dinner last night, none of its proposers had found the time to engage with me or approach me in any way on this matter since it was debated in your Lordships’ House. That is a matter of regret, because in my relatively short time here I have found that discussions before matters are raised in the Chamber can be very useful. Had the matter been raised with me, I would have had the opportunity—and I would have availed myself of it—of pointing out some of the confusion behind the amendment and asking the noble and learned Lord whether the amendment he has tabled is in fact the amendment he wanted to table. I will come back to that point.
Having heard the words of my noble and learned friends Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Clarke and my noble friend Lord Cormack, I will not get into the propriety or otherwise but will deal with the substance of the point. Harper’s law, which is the focus of the amendment, requires the imposition of a life sentence in cases where an emergency worker is the victim of unlawful act manslaughter. The intention of the amendment appears to be to restrict this to cases that involve an underlying unlawful act that is of a certain level of seriousness. My understanding is that it seeks to do so by excluding from the scope of Harper’s law those cases in which the unlawful act that underpins the unlawful act manslaughter of the emergency worker is one that, had the offender been convicted of that as a stand-alone offence, would have carried
“a maximum sentence of less than five years imprisonment.”
There is, I am afraid, real confusion as to what the amendment seeks to do. Noble Lords who enjoy it really ought to turn to page 4, line 39 of the Bill and remind themselves that this seeks to include an exception into Harper’s law. That is very important when one sees that in proposed new paragraph (c)(i) of the amendment there is a “not”, so it ends up with a double negative.
It seems to me that there are two interpretations of this paragraph and, from what the noble and learned Lord said, I am really not sure which interpretation he seeks to put forward. The first is—bear with me here—that it appears to except from that five-year maximum category, and therefore include within Harper’s law, cases in which the death was
“caused by dangerous driving or driving when under the influence of drink or drugs,”
even if the maximum penalty for the unlawful act offence was less than five years. If that is the case, it is not clear why that should be if the main thrust of the noble and learned Lord’s argument is that Harper’s law should not apply if the underlying offence carried a sentence of less than five years.
I also point out, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord knows all too well, that dangerous driving and the other driving offences here do not and cannot themselves form a basis for unlawful act manslaughter in any case, because that is the result of the decision in Andrews v DPP.
The alternative explanation of this form of words put forward by the noble and learned Lord is that the amendment appears to intend that where the unlawful act underlying the unlawful act manslaughter is one that in and of itself would attract a maximum penalty of less than five years’ imprisonment, that will be outside Harper’s law unless that act is accompanied by
“dangerous driving or driving when under the influence”,
which in the context of unlawful act manslaughter would be the circumstances that render the unlawful act dangerous.
I apologise to the House for subjecting it to a disquisition on unlawful act manslaughter but this is precisely the sort of point I would have discussed with the noble and learned Lord, had it been brought to my attention before I was halfway through my main course last night. More to the point, this would be an insertion at page 4, line 39 of the Bill; it would therefore go into proposed new Section 258A, which applies where
“(a) a person aged under 18 is convicted of a relevant offence, (b) the offence was committed … when the person was aged 16 or over”.
So, this amendment to Harper’s law, which is put forward on the basis of general principle, applies only to 16 and 17 year-olds. I did not understand from any of the speeches in favour of the amendment that the principle underlying those speeches was limited to 16 and 17 year-olds. The point was put on the basis that it ought to be of general application.
Why, I ask rhetorically, since the point has not been made, is this limited to 16 and 17 year-olds? Of course, the answer is obvious: it is not intended to be limited to 16 and 17 year-olds. Again, had this amendment been shown to me before halfway through my main course last night, I would have pointed this out, with respect, to the noble and learned Lord. What we have, therefore, is a late amendment, brought without any discussion with me or my colleagues, which fundamentally seeks to uproot the position taken by this House in Committee and on Report. It also suffers from fundamental uncertainty as to what it actually does, and the fundamental problem that it seems to apply only to 16 and 17 year-olds.
Quite apart from all of that, I simply do not see any merit in restricting Harper’s law in this way. We have already taken care to ensure that the provisions inserted by Clause 3 will apply only in cases of unlawful act manslaughter of an emergency worker who is acting in exercise of their functions as such a worker. Unlawful act manslaughter, as noble Lords certainly know by now, captures those cases where an unlawful act has been intentionally performed in circumstances rendering it dangerous, and that has caused death. It is the Government’s position that the unlawful act manslaughter of an emergency worker merits a mandatory life sentence. The seriousness of such conduct and the harm it causes both to the emergency worker—obviously—and to our wider society are evident. I respectfully see no reason to limit the sentence in the way this amendment appears to intend.
I come to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—I respectfully congratulate her on 50 years in the criminal justice system—about discretion. There is, of course, a judicial discretion built in here; we have had this debate on several occasions during consideration of the Bill. Where the court considers that there are exceptional circumstances relating either to the offence or the offender that justify the imposition of a sentence other than life imprisonment, this could be done. I accept that some people want the exception to be broader, while some people may not want an exception at all, but that has been the Government’s consistent position throughout the Bill. I find it a little surprising that, at Third Reading, such a fundamental point is apparently up for discussion again.
Before I sit down—and I apologise to the House for delaying it—I come to the “one knock” case that the noble and learned Lord has put. If a person at a protest or demonstration were to hit a police officer who was then, for example, to fall over, hit their head and, God forbid, die, that could be captured under Harper’s law if it amounted to unlawful act manslaughter. Why is that? The reason is that what has happened here is not a simple case of battery. Under the offences made out here, the offence for which the offender would be sentenced is unlawful act manslaughter, and the Government believe that that crime, when done against an emergency worker acting as such, merits a mandatory life sentence other than where there are exceptional circumstances.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am incredibly grateful for the support from all around the House. I am particularly grateful to my noble and learned predecessor and my noble and learned successor for supporting me in this matter.
The response from the Minister was incredibly disappointing. It was bombastic and technical and failed to address the essential issue, which is: what about the “one knock” manslaughter case? The answer that came in the end appeared to be, “Actually, we intend to cover that.”
The Minister made one good point on the drafting. He is absolutely right that my draft covers only 17 year-olds because it refers only to page 4. I would have had to submit the same draft in relation to pages 5 and 6 as well, which, if I had got page 4 in, I am sure would not have made much difference.
This is such an important issue that I would have been tempted to obtain the opinion of the House. All around the House there has been support for it, but the only encouragement I get is the technical point the Minister made. It may be that when this comes to the House of Commons, the Government will consider that they could improve my drafting and get to the same result. In those circumstances, with regret, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
Member’s explanatory statement
This clause is consequential on a clause which was not added to the bill, as it was defeated by a vote of the House. This clause therefore provides background detail for a power and a clause that do not exist. This amendment would remove this non-operational clause from the bill.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, my amendment would leave out Clause 80. The clause is consequential on a new clause from the Government that this House declined by a Division last week to add to the Bill. That new clause introduced the offence of “interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure”. What is now Clause 80 should surely not have been moved following that vote; it provides background detail for a power and a clause that do not exist. It starts off, for example, by saying:
“This section has effect for the purposes of section (Interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure)”,
and goes on to define types of national infrastructure for the purpose of the Government’s new clause to which this House disagreed. My amendment would thus remove that non-operational clause from the Bill. I understand that the Government will not be opposing this necessary tidying-up amendment, and I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for that. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I want to make the very simple point that even if the Government were not going to accept the amendment, the clause would be pretty nonsensical due to the very strange way in which it defines “national infrastructure”. It has a unique set of definitions that includes some things that would not normally be regarded as infrastructure and excludes other things that are critical to the nation and the way it operates.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who has explained that the amendment would remove Clause 80 from the Bill. It defines “key national infrastructure” for the purposes of the Government’s proposed offence of interfering with the operation or use of key national infrastructure. Of course, I was extremely disappointed that the House voted not to add this new offence to the Bill on Report. The proposed offence would help protect the British public from the misery that certain individuals targeting our key national infrastructure have been able to cause.
The Government fully defend the right to peaceful protest, but we stand behind the British public in protecting them from the serious disruption caused by some who think their right to protest trumps the rights of the public to go about their daily lives. That said, the fact remains that as your Lordships did not support the introduction of the new offence, we are not going to play games: what is now Clause 80 of the Bill is redundant, and, consequently, the Government will not oppose this amendment.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I had moved the amendment and wanted to put it to the vote, and I hoped that the House would be prepared to accept it. I thank the Minister for what she has said.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“Imprisonment for public protection etc: duty to refer person released on licence to Parole Board
(1) Section 31A of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (imprisonment or detention for public protection: termination of licences) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (6).(2) In subsection (2)(a), after “Chapter” insert “(whether or not the prisoner has subsequently been recalled to prison under section 32)”.(3) For subsection (3) substitute—“(3) Where—(a) the prisoner has been released on licence under this Chapter (whether or not the prisoner has subsequently been recalled to prison under section 32);(b) the qualifying period has expired; and(c) if the Secretary of State has made a previous reference of the prisoner’s case under this subsection, the period of twelve months beginning with the day of the disposal of that reference has expired,the Secretary of State must refer the prisoner’s case to the Parole Board under this subsection.”(4) In subsection (4)—(a) in the words before paragraph (a), for “an application” substitute “a reference”, and(b) in paragraph (b), for “application” substitute “reference”.(5) After subsection (4) insert—“(4A) A reference under subsection (3) must be made, and a reference under that subsection must be determined by the Parole Board under subsection (4), even if at the time of the reference or determination the prisoner is in prison having been recalled under section 32.(4B) If at the time of the determination the prisoner is in prison having been recalled under section 32—(a) subsection (2) does not apply, and(b) subsection (4)(a) has effect as if it required the Parole Board—(i) to determine whether it is satisfied that it is not necessary for the protection of the public for the prisoner, when released, to be released on licence in respect of the preventative sentence or sentences, and (ii) if it is so satisfied, to direct the Secretary of State accordingly.(4C) Where the Parole Board gives a direction under subsection (4B)(b)(ii)—(a) if at any time the Board directs the prisoner’s release under section 28, that section has effect in relation to the prisoner as if, in subsection (5), for “to release him on licence” there were substituted “to release the prisoner unconditionally”, and(b) if at any time the Board directs the prisoner’s release under section 32, that section has effect in relation to the prisoner as if, in subsection (5), for “immediate release on licence” there were substituted “immediate unconditional release”.”(6) In subsection (5), in the definition of “the qualifying period”, after “on licence” insert “(whether or not the prisoner has subsequently been recalled to prison under section 32)”.(7) Subsection (8) applies to an application made by a person under section 31A(3) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 before this section comes into force.(8) If the application has not been determined when this section comes into force, subsections (4) to (4C) of section 31A of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 apply in relation to it as if it were a reference of the person’s case by the Secretary of State to the Parole Board under subsection (3) of that section.(9) Subsection (10) applies if a person remains on licence under Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, or remains subject to release on licence under that Chapter, following—(a) the disposal before this section comes into force of the person’s application to the Parole Board under section 31A(3) of that Act, or(b) the disposal under subsection (4) of section 31A of that Act, as it has effect by virtue of subsection (8) of this section, of the person’s application to the Parole Board under subsection (3) of that section.(10) Subsection (3) of section 31A of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 applies in relation to the person as if the application had been a reference of the person’s case by the Secretary of State to the Parole Board under that subsection.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar at page 133, line 13, page 135, line 13 and page 233, line 33 give effect to an undertaking given by Lord Wolfson on 15th December 2021 (Hansard col. 359). This amendment imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to refer the case of a person who is serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection (or the equivalent youth sentence), and has been released on licence, to the Parole Board after ten years and annually after that.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, following my commitment and undertaking to the House on Report, I am pleased to be able to bring this package of amendments relating to imprisonment for public protection—IPP—before the House this afternoon. I thank sincerely the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—and I understand why he is unable to be in his place today—the noble and learned Lords, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Judge, and my noble friend Lord Moylan for their commitment to this cause and continued engagement with me on this matter. We have had a series of meetings and calls, which have been invaluable. They offered me their considerable wisdom and experience both of this subject and of this House in order to get this amendment—if I may put it this way—across the table and over the line.
It was made very clear at all stages in this House that there was enormous strength of feeling that some beneficial change for IPP offenders was both right and necessary. I am pleased that we have cross-party support for this sensible, proportionate and effective change that will provide such benefit but at no risk to public protection.
I committed on Report to bringing forward an amendment which puts the Secretary of State’s policy of automatic referral of applications to terminate the IPP licence on to a statutory footing. This would enable all eligible IPP offenders to be referred to the Parole Board for consideration for licence termination at the appropriate time. The new clause that I have tabled delivers on this commitment.
The position is that Section 31A of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 sets out how IPP offenders are currently able to apply for licence termination. Once the qualifying period of 10 years has elapsed—that is, 10 years from the offender’s first release by the Parole Board—this section provides that offenders can apply to the Parole Board to be considered for licence termination. In practice, the Secretary of State has made it policy to do this on the offender’s behalf, but first had to obtain consent from the offender.
The principal change in the first of the amendments in my name is in new subsection (2), which amends the wording of Section 31A so that the Secretary of State will be legally required to automatically refer the offender where the 10-year qualifying period has expired. Where the offender has previously been referred to the Parole Board for licence termination, they will automatically be referred if 12 months have elapsed since the previous reference. That removes the need for the offender to give permission for the Secretary of State to make applications on their behalf, and will enable the IPP licence to be brought to a definitive end for more offenders.
The clause also adds a new subsection to Section 31A which deals with offenders who are in custody following recall under the IPP licence. When an offender is recalled to prison, their licence is automatically revoked, so they cannot have their licence terminated while they are in prison following recall because they are no longer on licence. But, in these cases, the Secretary of State will still be required to refer the offenders to the Parole Board on the point of eligibility and every 12 months thereafter. The Parole Board will then determine whether the licence should remain in force following any subsequent release decision. It will be up to the Parole Board whether to terminate the licence of an IPP offender in custody—but these provisions are specifically intended to ensure that all eligible IPP offenders, who are either on licence or have been recalled and had their licence revoked, have the opportunity to have their licence terminated.
The remaining subsections are technical, transitional and clarificatory to ensure that the clause works correctly. But I make it absolutely clear from the Dispatch Box that time spent in custody on recall does not affect the running of the 10-year qualifying period. There are two further amendments in my name, both of which are consequential. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for joining me in them. The second amendment ensures that this clause operates correctly with other subsections that might prevent a referral, and the third sets the commencement date at two months following Royal Assent.
Taken as a package, these amendments appropriately balance the need to protect the public with ensuring that IPP offenders who are assessed by the Parole Board as no longer posing a risk to the public are given every opportunity to have their IPP licence, and the IPP sentence as a whole, terminated. So, with renewed thanks to those noble and learned Lords who joined me, particularly in supporting the first amendment, for their sustained engagement, I beg to move Amendment 3.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Judge has asked that I go next. I have indeed added my name to the first substantive government amendment, but I indicated that I would—and I do—make it plain that I do so without any great enthusiasm. Rather, it is on the basis that one must be grateful for small mercies—here, alas, I put the emphasis on the “small”.
I am grateful to the Minister for doing what he could for us, and, so far as it goes, I welcome the small change brought about by the amendment. But, in my respectful view, it does not go remotely far enough. It is difficult to overemphasise how small a concession this is in relation to the overall problem of the remaining IPP prisoners. Even in respect of the recall prisoners, we had hoped that the maximum term for which a licence should remain in force would be reduced from 10 years to five.
Beyond that, I fervently hoped to do something for the 1,700-odd cohort of IPP prisoners who have never been released and who remain incarcerated 10 years after this whole sentencing regime was abolished by LASPO in 2012. Many of the 1,700 are substantially more than 10 years beyond their tariff term—but there it is. We now have to—and we do—put our faith in the House of Commons Justice Committee, which has taken evidence and listened to many, including me, and is shortly to report on the whole question of this remaining regime. One hopes that it will do something to meet this grave, continuing and, indeed, growing injustice. In the meantime, I make it plain that I support this most modest of amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, with the agreement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, I rise to thank my noble friend the Minister. I know from conversations with him that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who cannot be in his place today would join me in expressing our appreciation to my noble friend the Minister for the integrity, openness and engagement—and consequently the trust—he has engendered since Report. This is an example of government and the House working constructively to improve the operation of the criminal justice system and those affected by it.
The amendment moved by my noble friend addresses one limb of the amendment in my name in Committee and again on Report. It puts into effect the Government’s own previously announced policy of making the termination of licences automatic. I welcome that, but I still hope that soon the Government will also adopt the second limb of that amendment to reduce the qualifying period from 10 years to five. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said, the Justice Select Committee in the other place is considering this whole case.
I hope that when my noble friend replies he will be able to say that, if that committee recommends a reduction in the qualifying period from 10 years to five, the Government will be quick to adopt that amendment and put it into effect. Both measures—the automaticity of the referral and the potential reduction of the qualifying period from 10 years to five—are primarily aimed at IPP prisoners out on licence, not those in prison, though I appreciate that my noble friend has pointed out that those on recall may gain some benefit from this.
This is the first crack in the wall of this regime made in the last 10 years. It would be very easy for noble Lords to think that now is a moment when we could perhaps relax; the Government, having made a concession and implicitly recognised an injustice, will move, quietly perhaps, to resolve the whole matter quickly. But that is not what the Ministry of Justice is expecting to see happen.
In a Written Answer given in the other place by my right honourable friend Kit Malthouse on 3 December last year, the Ministry of Justice set out in round numbers how many IPP prisoners it expected to see released on licence in each of the next five years. It came to 800. But when asked how many of those out on licence it expected to see recalled to prison over the same period, the total came to a staggering 3,400. The Ministry of Justice expects 2,600 more IPP prisoners, net, to be in jail over the next five years than there are today. That is nearly a doubling of the number of IPP prisoners in prison today. This problem is not resolved; we have not even begun to resolve it. This problem is going to get worse and the Government are obliged to take it seriously.
My noble friend referred on Report to the existence of an action plan. He said that the ministry had an action plan for dealing with the problem. Requests to see the action plan have been met with a response from my noble friend to the effect that it will be available shortly, or it is not currently available, but we may look forward to it. I do look forward to it; we might all look forward to it, but we would like to see it soon. We would like to see it address this problem and put this scandal properly behind us as soon as possible.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, who has found himself wallowing in a misery of injustice and has done a great deal at least for the issue to be recorded in statute. For me, that is the only advantage of this amendment, but I respect very much the efforts he has made to produce an amendment at all.
Beyond that, I entirely agree with the observations from my noble and learned friend Lord Brown and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. We have not got to the end of the beginning of this, but the end of the beginning has possibly come into sight. For me, after the shambles of this dreadful piece of statutory—I could get carried away and then I would be speaking unparliamentary language, but noble Lords all know what I mean; I shall just stick to shambles—we can begin to make up for what has gone on over too many years.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the amendment. He has followed through on a commitment he made on Report, which is greatly appreciated. However, like all the other noble Lords who have spoken, I wish the Government had gone further. Indeed, our little cross-party team put several other amendments forward, a number of which have been alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
This is one small improvement to a system that needs to be abolished for this group of prisoners caught on the wrong side of history. It is, however, a movement in the right direction. When the Minister spoke to me on the day that he made the commitment to bring the amendment forward, he quoted Newton’s second law. For noble Lords who, like me, do not have a clue what Newton’s second law is, it says that it is easier to move an object already in motion than one at rest. Well, the object is in motion and we—and, I believe, he—will try to push it along as far and as fast as we can whenever the opportunity arises. The ball is rolling and we will keep on pushing for justice and fairness for those whom the law has left behind.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate that Third Reading is not the time for long and ponderous speeches, but I wanted to place on record—as someone who tabled amendments on Report and in Committee to deal with IPPs and the injustice that remains—that I wholeheartedly support the remarks of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Brown and Lord Judge, my noble friend Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt.
This is just the beginning and must be seen as something that will continue to be looked at, both by the Select Committee in the other place and the Ministry of Justice. I also place on record my personal thanks to my noble friend the Minister, who has dealt with this question with sensitivity and within the bounds of possibility that being a Minister in this House places on him. I thank him for what he has done and look forward to hearing more that will undo the injustice that the IPP regime is still visiting on a number of people.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I feel very guilty that I was unable to arrange my diary to take any part in the Bill as it went through because this is the part of the Bill in which I would otherwise have taken an active part. I have already apologised to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, outside this House for the fact that in the end I was not able to offer him any assistance.
I add only, as my noble and learned friend just has, my support and simply record that I was the Lord Chancellor who abolished indeterminate sentences in 2011 with the wholehearted support of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who was then in the House of Commons with me and defused any attempts to preserve this stain on the statute book, which he had accidentally introduced without any expectation that it would be used as it was and resolve into a problem.
If you had told me when we abolished this sentence that there would be thousands of people in the position that they are now, 11 years after abolition, because they were left over to be dealt with, I would not have believed it. What I proposed was simply a change to the burden of proof that the Parole Board had to apply when deciding whether it was safe to release somebody, but that was never implemented. The fact that all these years later we face these problems is something of a disgrace. I thank the Minister for making this modest move, but I certainly agree with what everybody has said about the modesty of it. It needs urgently to be addressed by the Select Committee in the other place.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I too would like to echo the thanks for the Minister. He has, in a sense, been a lobbyist within the Ministry of Justice to get this modest amendment over the line. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, summed up the position very well when he described it as the first crack in the wall. I was alarmed by the figures he quoted from his Written Question, where he seemed to indicate that there would be more prisoners in jail because of recalls, so the problem is likely to get worse and not better.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, referred to the Minister’s reference to Newton’s second law—that it is easier to move an object that is already in motion. My first degree was in physics, and I would phrase that slightly differently, in a way that is relevant to the politics: the rate of change of movement is proportional to the impressed force. We on this side are certainly interested in increasing the impressed force on this object which is currently under way.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the kind words a number of noble Lords have said. This may be a modest start, but it is a start, and I am sure that the conversation will continue. In particular, as I said when we discussed this matter substantively, I am well aware that the Justice Select Committee is looking at this matter. It will be reporting soon and, while I cannot go quite as far as my noble friend Lord Moylan would want me to by saying that, if the committee recommends, for example, changing the qualifying period from 10 years to five years, the Government will adopt it, I can say—which I hope would be obvious anyway—that we will take anything that comes out of the Justice Select Committee extremely seriously and look at it with very great care.
The action plan has been provided to the Justice Select Committee. We will review it again following the publication of its report to take account of our consideration following its recommendations. I hope the House will forgive me if I do not respond to everybody who contributed. I am conscious that we are at Third Reading and there is other business before the House. But I thank everybody who has contributed to this short debate. In particular, I respectfully thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for our conversations and the correspondence we have had, which she knows I have been dealing with.
I am conscious that Newton has now been invoked on a number of occasions. I am not altogether sure whether Newtonian physics applies to government action, but I will proceed on the basis that it does. I will try to push things as far as I can, but for present purposes, the only things I will immediately seek to move are these amendments.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“(3A) Subsection (3) does not apply to a reference by the Secretary of State under section 31A(3).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new Clause in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar to be inserted after Clause 136. It disapplies section 33A(3) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (inserted by Clause 142) in relation to a reference by the Secretary of State under section 31A(3) of that Act.
“(3A) The reference in subsection (3)(a) to a requirement of the Secretary of State to refer a prisoner’s case to the Board does not include a requirement to do so under section 31A(3) of the 1997 Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new Clause in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar to be inserted after Clause 136. It disapplies section 267C(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (inserted by Clause 142) in relation to a reference by the Secretary of State under section 31A(3) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“(ma) section (Imprisonment for public protection etc: duty to refer person released on licence to Parole Board);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new Clause in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar to be inserted after Clause 136. It provides for that Clause to come into force two months after Royal Assent.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may just detain the House a little longer to mark the end of this Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. It has been a big Bill, with much scrutiny across no fewer than 11 days of Committee; and six days on Report has added to its size. During this time, we have added some important new measures to the Bill, including to further tackle violence against women and girls. Noble Lords have also made a few changes to the Bill, against the advice of the Government. It will now be for the House of Commons to consider those amendments, and we will no doubt be debating them again soon.
I reiterate the Government’s disappointment at the removal of some very important measures, the aim of which was to prevent a repeat of the scenes we saw last year, with people blocking roads, preventing those going about their daily lives from doing so and—yes—preventing essential services such as ambulances getting through to hospitals. The public demanded that the Government act to stop this serious disruption. We did so, but noble Lords on the Benches opposite decided to block these measures. That will not go unnoticed by the public.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I say to my noble friends behind me that I will resist the temptation to make political comments on the Bill. After all the days we have had in Committee and on Report, I am sure they will understand why I do not wish to go down that road.
I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for all the work that they have so obviously done on this Bill. I also thank them for the meetings we have held and the changes that have been secured through government amendments or government support for amendments.
I also thank my noble friends Lord Coaker, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lady Chapman of Darlington. As the Minister reminded us, my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark has also been involved, as has been my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. We seem to have had a fairly large Front Bench on this side of the House, and I am extremely grateful to all of them for the work that they have done.
I too thank the Bill team. Everything that the Minister said about them we would certainly endorse and wish to be associated with. They have been extremely helpful, and we have appreciated that. I also thank the many outside organisations with an interest in the terms of this Bill for the briefings that they have given us, both written and verbal. That has been extremely helpful too.
Talking of help, I would like to thank for the vital and invaluable work they do colleagues in our office here in the Lords, particularly Grace Wright, who has been a key figure and has certainly kept me on the straight and narrow. I am quite sure that any mistakes I have made have been nothing to do with her; she has prevented me making an awful lot as it is.
The Bill has been improved by amendments that this House has made and, in some cases, by resisting amendments to which this House has not agreed. As the Minister said, it now goes back to the Commons. Like her, I too wait to see what the Commons will now make of this Bill as amended by your Lordships.
I again thank everybody whom I have mentioned, and I am quite sure that there are others whom I should have mentioned but have not done so. For that, I apologise.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I remember looking at this 307-page Bill—or at least it was 307 pages to begin with—in August and wondering how on earth to tackle it. I was reminded that the way to eat an elephant is one piece at a time, which is the approach we took. This was about five Bills stapled together, except the PPO could not staple them together because it was too big. The Bill returns to the other place considerably improved, although you cannot make a silk purse out a sow’s ear—these are separate metaphors; I am not mixing them—or should I say a boar’s ear in these days?
I shall not resist what the Minister has said about the Bill. As far as we on these Benches are concerned, the existing legislation to control protest was adequate, and the measures that we have removed from the Bill were not necessary in the first place. The majority of the police consider that a lack of police officers is the limiting factor when it comes to policing of protests rather than a lack of legislation.
I would normally thank the Minister and the Bill team for their engagement, but, certainly, I am not alone on these Benches, at least as far as the home affairs side of things is concerned, in feeling that the Government have not reached out to us as much as they could or should have done. None the less, we have all been in this together over a considerable period, and I am grateful for the time that the Government have given in allowing us to debate these issues.
I thank the Official Opposition, both the leadership and Back-Benchers, the Cross- Benchers, non-affiliated Peers and the Greens for their support and co-operation. In particular, I thank Elizabeth Plummer and Grace Wright for their invaluable help on the Bill, as well as all the outside organisations which helpfully provided us with briefings. We would not have done any of this without that help, and we hope that the Government will see the improvements that we have made to the Bill as improvements when it is considered by the other place.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, the Bill has been much improved. I pay particular thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for working over six years with me and my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, in widening the pardons and the disregards for historical homosexual offences, including in the Armed Forces. It is truly historic when a state apologises for what it has done and reaches back over 500 years. It is the end of a six-year campaign that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has been an active part of. I cannot thank her and the Bill team enough, and indeed colleagues and the team in the Armed Forces. I also put on record our thanks to Professor Paul Johnson, the country’s leading expert on this. Finally, it might have been a six-year campaign, but some of us have campaigned for more than 33 years, not for ourselves but so that injustices can at last be put right.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will try not to repeat too much of what my noble friend Lord Paddick said. He pointed out—it is not a new point—that this has been a long and difficult Bill. I am bound to say that we must all hope that such a mammoth Bill, with such a wide range of diverse topics shoehorned into a single piece of legislation, will never be put before Parliament again. It has taken too many days, with too little time for the content involved and too much pressure, not just on MPs and Peers but on parliamentary staff, officials and those many organisations that seek to brief us about legislation. For us here, there have been too many early starts and too many late nights. It has been a very difficult experience.
None the less, I completely agree that the House has done its job well. We are very grateful to the ministerial team and their officials. On justice issues, I am, of course, particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for the care, courtesy, approachability and engagement, not to say humour, that he has shown in our discussions. We have had some significant successes, from our point of view, on breastfeeding voyeurism and common assault in the context of domestic abuse. We have had some limited progress—my goodness, it is limited—on IPPs. That is clearly not the end of the story.
On Home Office issues, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for her care and the comprehensively courteous way she has dealt with the House, although I am bound to say that I share my noble friend Lord Paddick’s view that we have felt that she has not been able, on behalf of the Government, to make the concessions she perhaps might have liked to have made in some areas.
These Ministers illustrate the pressure there has been on all of us. In this context, I mention the tireless and efficient work of my noble friend Lord Paddick, who has borne the brunt of days and weeks of debate over many hours and days of sitting, and there have been many more days of preparation.
Before the Bill finally passes, we on these Benches regard it as largely profoundly regressive. On human rights issues, the House must expect Liberal Democrats and others in the Opposition to continue robustly to defend individual liberty in a way that we do not believe the Bill does. On justice, we will keep the pressure up for a humane sentencing system dedicated to rehabilitation and reform, combined with increasing use of community sentences. We will continue to work on women’s justice, where it seems that we are accepting very slow progress when we should be looking for dramatic improvement.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I realise that I ought to be gracious, but I have hated almost every minute we spent on this Bill over the days, weeks and months. I deeply regret that it will pass. I wish it had not been presented in the first place and I wish we had not been forced to let it through, but it has been historic. One of the things that has been historic is the united opposition to some of its worst parts. That is something the House can be proud of. I look forward to many more days, weeks and months of arguing with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord on the Benches opposite.
Downing Street Parties: Police Investigation
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my honourable friend the Paymaster-General to an Urgent Question in another place on the investigation into Downing Street parties following the statement from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. The Statement is as follows:
“As the House will be aware, earlier today the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police confirmed that the Metropolitan Police Service will be investigating alleged breaches of Covid-19 regulations within the Government. This is a matter for the police, and the House will understand that I am not in a position to comment on the nature or content of the police investigation. I previously made it clear from this Dispatch Box that the Government recognise, and I recognise, the public anxiety and indignation that it appears as though the people who have been setting the rules may not have been following the rules, and I would like to repeat that sentiment today. This is why the Prime Minister asked for a Cabinet Office investigation to take place.
The terms of reference for that investigation, led by the Second Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Sue Gray, have been published and laid in the Library of the House. Those terms made it clear that, as with all internal investigations, if, during the course of the work, any evidence emerges of behaviour that is potentially a criminal offence, the matter will be referred to the police and the Cabinet Office’s work may be paused.
As the House would expect, there is ongoing contact between the Cabinet Office investigation and the Metropolitan Police Service. However, the Cabinet Office investigation will continue its work. I would urge the House to wait for the findings of that investigation and for the police to conclude their work. That is important to allow the work to take place unimpeded and to protect the rights of all those involved. I must emphasise that matters relating to adherence to the law are properly a matter for the police to investigate, and the Cabinet Office will liaise with them as appropriate.
Finally, I can confirm that the findings of the investigation will be provided to this honourable House and made public. The House will understand that there is a limit to what I can say, given that this is an ongoing investigation. I also cannot comment on what is now an ongoing police investigation, and therefore I ask that Members of the House let the investigation run its course and do not pre-empt its conclusions.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I know the Minister to be an honourable and decent man. I just have to wonder how many more times he will be comfortable coming to the Dispatch Box to defend the indefensible to your Lordships’ House. So I thank him for being prepared to answer questions today.
I have to say that defending this Prime Minister is a tough gig, particularly now it is the Metropolitan Police asking the questions. First, if I may press the Minister on a point of clarity, this morning we were told that the Sue Gray report was not able to be published, but parts of it—I think he used the word “findings”—would be published. We are now told that the Metropolitan Police is happy for all of it to be published. There has been some confusion over the course of the day as to what will be available, when it will be published and what will happen. Can the Minister please say whether the Government will commit to the publication of the report—not just the findings—and not in any way block it from being made available to the public in its entirety?
Secondly, and I appreciate that this may be a difficult one for the Minister, can he confirm reports today that after the Prime Minister was personally informed about the police investigation, he then chaired a Cabinet meeting and chose not to inform his own Cabinet of the police investigation? The Minister will know how deeply shocking that would be and what an enormous concern that would give, if that was the case. I would be grateful if he would comment on those two points.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, on the second point, obviously, I am not a member of the Cabinet and not informed on that matter. It is not custom, as the noble Baroness knows, to comment on Cabinet discussions. On the first point, I must repeat what I said in the Statement. As the terms of reference set out, the findings will be made public. Obviously, there is an interrelation between the Cabinet Office inquiry and the police investigation, and any intimation must be left to those conducting the inquiries. As far as the Government are concerned, I repeat: the findings and the investigation will be made public.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, it is not disputed that the Prime Minister attended his own birthday party at a time when such gatherings were illegal. So he is now simply awaiting the executioner’s blow, either from the Gray report or the police investigation. In the meantime, his authority has disappeared completely. Will the Minister pass on to the Prime Minister the view of the country, and I suspect of this House, that the only positive act that he could now perform would be to resign today?
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, could the Minister give us a little more precise guidance about the effect of these developments today on the timing of Sue Gray’s report? Can that report still be expected within the next few days?
Lord True (Con)
Most noble Lords will understand why I am not going to speculate on the timing of the progress of either investigation. I have told the House that aspects of the Cabinet Office investigation will continue. Obviously, there is an independent police investigation. I am sure the noble Lord, with his great experience and great service to the country, will understand that those two inquiries must be allowed to run their course.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I am not, contrary to what people might think, a cheerleader for the Prime Minister. Indeed, when I had the opportunity, I did not vote for him, for a number of reasons. However, I think we should get things in perspective. It seems to me that the great British public are not terribly concerned about—
Lord Robathan (Con)
I am not talking about Members of the House of Lords sitting opposite, I am talking about the British public. I do not think they are very concerned. I care very much whether the Prime Minister lies, as it happens, because I think Prime Ministers should have integrity. However, the instability at the top that has been caused by this furore is deeply worrying when we have geopolitical events in Ukraine. Frankly, I think most people would like to see the Government getting on with it. Perhaps the Prime Minister will eventually have to resign, but I think that what is now happening in Ukraine and elsewhere is more important.
Lord True (Con)
I will not agree with every aspect of my noble friend’s remarks, but he does make a point: the business of government must continue. We all know there are very grave matters before the Government, both domestic and international. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is fully and actively engaged in those and made a Statement on events in Ukraine in the House of Commons earlier. I believe it is important that that factor is recognised.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, Kate Josephs, who was director-general of the Covid task force and is now chief executive of Sheffield City Council, has admitted going to a drinks party for her leaving do on 17 December 2020. Subsequently, she tried to mislead the local press by denying that she had been to drinks parties. She apologised only 19 minutes before the story went public. Does the Minister believe that this is the leadership behaviour expected of a chief executive in local government?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am not going to comment on any particular individual at the Dispatch Box. I am sure the noble Lord is a greater expert on Sheffield than I.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, there is great concern around the country. The graphic photograph of the Queen alone at her husband’s funeral, juxtaposed with other pictures, did cause a great deal of disquiet. Will my noble friend the Minister do his best to guarantee that both reports—that of Sue Gray and if there is a report from the police—are published on a day when both Houses of Parliament are sitting?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I can only say to my noble friend that the reports of findings will be published in due course. There are investigations under way; those investigations, with great respect, should be allowed to continue and be completed. At that point, obviously, the matter of publication becomes condign.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we have just done the Third Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and I wondered whether the Minister would comment on the number of people who have been fined extortionate amounts of money for breaking rules and have been accused of breaking the law. Will they receive an amnesty, as a consequence of realising there was wide-scale rule-breaking?
Secondly, the Minister said the business of government will carry on—needs to carry on—but is there a danger that the Government will be distracted by this police inquiry, and hugely important matters of rebuilding society after lockdown are going to be neglected because of this preoccupation with No. 10 and parties? That is what the country is worried about.
Lord True (Con)
I agree with what the noble Baroness has said, and I can certainly give her the assurance that the work of governing is continuing. I do note that people on the Benches opposite are extremely distracted by their perusal of social media. But on the first point, she will understand that I cannot comment on the judgments that are being made in the courts or any individual cases, but obviously, I hear what she is saying.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has apologised several times and has shown that he understands the public’s indignation. Does my noble friend not agree that, until the investigations are conducted, we should better concentrate on more important issues such as Ukraine and the NIP, and instead of destabilising the Government we should all work together and move forward?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, we hear the voice of those who do not want to work together or move forward. I agree with what my noble friend said. I do believe, also, that there is a great principle, in public life and private life, that no one is guilty by accusation. We should let the reports be concluded.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I infer from the noble Lord’s statement that we can expect publication of only the findings of Sue Gray’s report and not the whole report. Am I right?
Secondly, does this sequence of events not raise serious questions about the nature of policing these lockdown regulations? It is almost impossible not to conclude that the police went from saying, “We are not investigating anything because we have no evidence”, to Sue Gray interviewing police officers and finding that they had evidence all along, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, having seen them, saying, “I either discipline the police officers or I investigate the crimes”?
Lord True (Con)
No, my Lords, nothing may be inferred of that kind. I refer the House to the very clear statements made by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner this morning, in her own words, where she set out the position. I do not think it is for me, as a Minister of the Crown, to add to or substitute the words of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
BBC Funding
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, in truth, we know that this Statement was about distraction—a vindictive distraction at that—away from the Prime Minister’s behaviour during lockdown, the Government’s unlawful VIP lane for Covid contracts and their continued refusal to deal with our country’s cost of living crisis.
The Secretary of State pleads that she is interested in the cost of living crisis; if she were, she would be telling the Prime Minister to reverse the cuts to universal credit, put a stop to the national insurance and tax hikes this April, back Labour’s VAT cut on fuel bills and follow the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, and raise the alarm about the £4 billion-worth of Covid-related fraud. Freezing the licence fee increase pales into insignificance when put alongside those issues.
Given the BBC’s stated desire to become a leaner outfit, and with the new ability of the corporation’s commercial arm to access more private finance, I can see why the Secretary of State believes there is a rationale for a freeze, but we do not necessarily agree, as it will have a significant impact on the BBC’s output. Surely, the Government’s discussions with the BBC should have been concluded before any decision or announcement was made. Secretary of State after Secretary of State has looked at alternatives to the licence fee and not managed to find a feasible solution. If there is one, we are, of course, happy to look at the detail, but why does this Secretary of State believe she will succeed where others have failed?
The Secretary of State has expressed unease that pensioners face punishment if they do not pay the licence fee, so she must be appalled to find out that it was her own Government who stopped subsidising free licences for the over-75s. She cited concerns about impartiality and groupthink, an area in which, in my view, the BBC is very self-aware—perhaps even more so than the Government. Both sides of our political divide often accuse the BBC of bias, which probably means that, on balance, it is getting things about right. During the current government crisis, it has seemed to us that ITV, Sky and Channel 4 have, if anything, been even more questioning of the Government’s credibility.
In general, the BBC is rightly viewed by most as a national treasure and an international icon, so perhaps the Minister can say why the Government are so determined to undermine it. You can almost set your watch by the Government’s constant threats to public service broadcasting. The knock-on impact of the freeze—a real-terms cut of some £285 million by the end of the settlement period—is likely to have a larger economic cost than what the BBC loses by way of income. As we saw at the height of the pandemic, reduced commissions put enormous strain on the production and creative ecosystem, which has been left far more fragile than it was pre-pandemic.
The fact is that the BBC acts to underpin our creative sector. It the Government start chipping away at its foundations, they will undermine the structure and fabric of our cultural institutions and a big part of what makes the cultural industries so profitable and popular internationally. At present, production costs are spiralling due to inflation and increased competition from other broadcasters. The BBC has already trimmed quite a lot of the fat behind the scenes, so the impact of further cuts is likely to be more obvious to viewers. Will the Minister speculate and tell us today where he thinks the cuts needed for the BBC to balance its books should come from?
To give the Minister credit, in recent debates he has defended the work of the BBC and the way it is funded. I appreciate that decisions on funding statements are taken at a higher pay grade by his superiors, but did the Minister know that they had been taken and that this announcement was due? Perhaps he can share with us today his feelings when he saw the tweet about the future of the BBC’s funding and the threatened end of the licence fee. The Treasury has indicated that it will not chase down the £4 billion fraudulently claimed from its coronavirus support schemes at the height of the pandemic, so why not reverse that—track down the money in order to properly fund the BBC and other services and reduce, or at least offset, the planned tax increases that will hit family budgets far harder than the licence fee ever could?
We need a stable and secure funding base for the BBC, a more co-operative and collegiate approach from the Secretary of State, and a proper plan in place to effectively review the BBC’s charter and address the long-term issues that the Secretary of State raised about the dynamic and fast-changing nature of the digital, media and communications sector, which contributes so much to this country, its national life and our economy. This Statement was about little of the above, and I am afraid that it was much more about the shambles that, hour by hour and day by day, this Government have descended into.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, the BBC is 100 this year—what a birthday present from the Secretary of State this is. What possible reason is there for this attack on an institution that is the backbone of our world-beating creative industries, doubling its money, so far as investment in our creative economy goes?
Does the Minister not agree that the effect of initial BBC spending multiplies as it ripples through the economy, from region to region and sector to sector? Does he agree that it is pivotal in supporting our creative industries through innovation, skills and training, which directly feed into the Government’s levelling-up agenda, making programmes across the country that boost local economies and utilise local skills? BBC investment over decades has helped to develop significant local creative hubs across the UK, not to mention a network of local radio and TV, ensuring that a spotlight is shone on important regional issues and essential local news.
Does the Minister agree that 43p a day, which is the cost of the licence fee, offers exceptional value to all audiences across the UK, supplying via television, radio and the internet British content that is universally available to everyone across the country? Cuts will affect everyone but especially those with only free-to-air TV and radio, who tend to be less well off and older. Does the Minister not also agree that the BBC has been a lifeline through the pandemic, providing both news that the public trusted and essential support, through Bitesize, for those home-schooling?
Does the Minister agree that the World Service and the programmes that it exports, which showcase this country’s creative talent, are central to promoting the UK around the world, and are the envy of the world? The BBC was described by our Prime Minister, when he was Foreign Secretary, as
“the single greatest and most effective ambassador for our culture and our values”.
The DCMS is not the department for social policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has mentioned; there are more direct ways to help those who are trying to deal with the burden of inflation plus increased energy bills. So will the Minister please listen to the words of Richard Sharp, chair of the BBC and a member of his party:
“I believe that the case for a well-funded, modern and efficient national broadcaster has not diminished over the past decade, but grown”?
Have the Government assessed the impact of this funding freeze on the BBC? Given that 95% of BBC spend goes into content and its delivery—despite what the Daily Mail says—what would the Minister be happy to do without? What about an impact assessment of this decision on the UK creative economy as a whole? Finally, does he not agree that these decisions cannot continue to be made behind closed doors—we believe that there is disagreement within the Cabinet about the announcement—and that we need an independent licence fee commission?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their questions. I will deal first with the question of timing and the assertion that this may be to do with other matters. I point out that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is under an obligation, under Article 43 of the BBC’s royal charter, to determine a funding settlement for the level of the licence fee for a period of “at least five years” from 1 April this year. She is also required to make her determination as far in advance of April as possible—that is what she set out in her Statement to another place on 17 January.
I welcome the focus of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on the cost of living. I was not clear from his remarks whether he agrees with the Government’s decision to announce the freeze in the fee so that the licence fee remains at £159 for two years, before rising in line with inflation—or whether he would have supported the alternative, which was for the licence fee to rise to £180 by 2027. But I welcome his recognition that there is a rationale for the decision that the Secretary of State has taken.
As the noble Baroness says, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is not a social policy department as some others are, but this is one area in which we are able to help people with the bills they face as the cost of living rises. Again, it was not clear from her Benches whether the decision to help people met with her party’s support.
Across the country, businesses and households face rising bills and are tightening their belts. It is right to expect the BBC to do the same and to support people as they do so. The decision we have taken follows extensive discussions with the BBC—negotiations that began as far back as November 2020—which involved my right honourable friend and her predecessor as Secretary of State and continued until, most recently, 12 January, the Wednesday before she made her Statement in another place. I was aware of those discussions and welcome the decision to help people with the rising bills they face.
On the idea that this attacks or undermines the BBC, which the noble Baroness and the noble Lord said, I simply point out that the settlement provides the BBC with some £3.7 billion in licence fee funding this year and £23 billion over the duration of the settlement period. It also gives the BBC financial certainty for the next six years, to the end of the current charter period, so that it can continue doing its excellent work, which I have been very glad to pay tribute to in your Lordships’ House before; I continue to do so.
I agree with the noble Baroness in her remarks quoting the Prime Minister, who, since he left the Foreign Office and moved to Downing Street, has repeated the comments about the value of the BBC—not just the World Service but at home—and the lifeline it provided to many people during the pandemic. That is why we have given the settlement that we have.
We also gave a generous settlement to S4C, which was set out in the Statement. S4C plays a vital role in supporting the Welsh economy, culture and society, and the Government decided to award it a £7.5 million per year uplift from the licence fee to support its digital development. In total, that will provide S4C with approximately £88.8 million in licence fee funding per annum, which will rise in line with increases to the licence fee from April.
We believe this is a fair settlement for the BBC, S4C and licence fee payers across the United Kingdom. It strikes the right balance between protecting households and allowing the BBC and S4C to deliver their vital public responsibilities. The settlement will encourage the BBC to make further savings and efficiencies as it becomes a leaner organisation that delivers better value to licence fee payers.
The Government will also more than double the borrowing limit of the BBC’s commercial arm to £750 million, which will enable the BBC to access private finance as it pursues an ambitious commercial growth strategy and to boost investment in the creative economy across the UK. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness are right to point to the important part it plays in the wider creative economy.
The BBC is a beacon for news reporting and the arts around the world, and has a unique place in our cultural heritage. We want it to continue to thrive in the decades to come, and to thrive alongside its competitors. That is why, as the Secretary of State also announced, the Government believe that it is the right time to begin asking serious questions about the long-term funding model of the BBC. We need to ask whether a mandatory licence fee is still appropriate, particularly as audience viewing habits have changed, especially among younger viewers.
The context of that debate is important. Over the last three years, the number of licence fees paid has declined by some 700,000. We need to acknowledge that the criminal sanction for non-payment of the licence fee can cause considerable stress and anxiety for people, particularly at a time when the cost of living is rising.
I was staggered to learn that almost one-third of convictions of women in this country are for non-payment of the licence fee. A growing number of women are getting criminal records and some are being imprisoned for non-payment of the fines imposed. These are the questions we should be asking and the debate we should be having as we undertake the review of the overall licence fee model. As the Secretary of State set out in her Statement in another place, this is the start of a discussion. I saw in the papers this weekend that the former Labour Culture Secretary, James Purnell, a senior executive at the BBC until recently, has started to engage in that debate in a very thoughtful way. I look forward to having that debate with noble Lords from across the House, but I hope they will agree that it is an important discussion to have.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for being premature, but I wanted to congratulate the noble Baroness on what she said, which my noble friend repeated. I have no objection whatever to re-examining the basis of the licence fee. That is a sensible thing to do, but what concerns me is the accompanying statements made by the Secretary of State for Culture, which seem to suggest that this has been more about a political battle between the Government and the BBC than the future of the corporation. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will dissociate himself from that campaign and say that that is not the policy of Her Majesty’s Government.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this is not part of any political discussion, other than the politics of ensuring, in the short term, that people are assisted with the rising cost of living and, in the long term, ensuring that the BBC has a sustainable model to continue to produce the excellent output that it does, both at home and around the world. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State paid tribute to it in her Statement and we all continue to do so. It is because we want to see it thrive that we want to make sure that it has the best sustainable model for the long term.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of just how much the BBC licence fee payer gets for his or her relatively low outlay on the licence fee? Let me just list the services: 10 TV services; 10 national radio services; 40 local radio stations; BBC iPlayer; BBC education programmes; the World Service; the BBC website and much more. Why are the Government jeopardising the quality of these many, varied services by their mean-spirited decision to freeze the licence fee for two years, thereby leading to a real-terms cut in BBC revenue? The explanation given in the Statement and implied by what the Minister said earlier—that the Government want to put more money into hard-pressed households’ pockets—just does not make sense, given the trivial amount entailed per household. If that is really what the Government want to do, I am sure the Minister will agree that abandoning their increase in national insurance payments, which really would make a difference, would be a better approach.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I do not think a settlement of more than £23 billion can be called mean-spirited. The noble Baroness is right to point to the wide range of things that the BBC does, but it is right, as we decide what the cost to the licence fee payer should be, that we look at those services in the context of the changing landscape and the other ways that people are consuming their news content and their entertainment provision and make sure that the BBC continues to be funded in a way that maintains its excellence and is fair to the people who pay for it.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, notwithstanding the success of S4C, does the Minister agree that BBC Cymru Wales makes an extraordinary, virtuous and unifying contribution to the life of people in Wales? Will he give an undertaking to the House that nothing will occur to undermine the quality of public service broadcasting through the BBC in and for Wales, given the huge contribution that BBC Cymru Wales makes to news, popular culture and sport for the people of the Principality?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as the BBC is operationally and editorially independent, it is up to it to decide how it spends its settlement, but I know it will want to maintain its excellent reputation throughout the United Kingdom in representing and delivering an excellent service to people right across the British Isles, as S4C does in Wales, as the noble Lord says.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
Will the Minister advise the Secretary of State that it would give greater veracity to her criticisms of the BBC if she refrained from commenting on party-political bias? That is the job of the party chairman. As Secretary of State, she is the sponsor for the broadcasting industry and I suggest she leaves criticisms of party-political bias to a different authority.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as we touched on in our debate on the BBC instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, before Christmas, it has been the hallmark of many Administrations to speak about the BBC with affection and sometimes criticism, as is the case with a much-cherished 100 year-old institution. The Statement that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out is the culmination of negotiations which began in November 2020, focused on helping licence fee payers in the short term and setting out a sustainable model for the BBC over the long term.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I cannot think of a time in the 100-year history of the BBC when an announcement of its future has been so politically motivated and accompanied by such ridiculous statements from the Minister responsible on Twitter. The one thing to grasp from the Statement was the offer of a proper, open, fair study of the problem of how we fund the BBC. If she wants to redeem her reputation, it would be by establishing such an independent, open commission to look at this problem and report, so that the next decision can be made in an informed way. Since we have just heard from one Bottomley, I shall quote another, the Father of the House, Peter Bottomley, my pair when I was in the other place. He said:
“The Conservative approach is to keep what is good, what works—and to improve whenever possible.”
What better terms of reference for such a future study of the funding of the BBC?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, Parliament is lucky to have a Bottomley in each House and I have the pleasure of calling them both friends. I will take the noble Lord’s suggestion about how we might have the debate that the Secretary of State has said we want to have about future funding back to the department. I welcome the fact that he is beginning to engage with it and look forward to having that debate with noble Lords across the House.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
My Lords, I have some difficulty accepting the criticism of intimidation of the BBC from noble Lords opposite. I seem to recall that the most dangerous moment in the whole history of the BBC was when Prime Minister Blair and his untrained attack Doberman, Alastair Campbell, attacked the BBC over the Gilligan broadcast about weapons of mass destruction. It brought the corporation to its knees to the extent that the chairman and the director-general resigned within 24 hours. The Blair Government were so desperate at what they had done to the BBC that they sent for me to go in and try to sort it out—that is how desperate they were.
That said, one would get the notion from listening to some of the comments around this House this evening that the BBC is impoverished by this settlement. Does the Minister agree that £3.7 billion in a very crowded marketplace of public intervention is a surprisingly good settlement? I wish those in the BBC who asked for more money from the Government would watch their own news bulletins and see what is going on, with people having to decide whether to heat or eat, and the increased use of food banks. There is a complete lack of reality about what is going on in Britain with this regressive tax. I believe in the BBC and I stand with everybody in this House who supports it, but this is not the time for it to be asking for more money. Does the Minister agree that the Secretary of State’s decision to fire the starting pistol for the big debate about what we want from the BBC and how we pay for it is a very good step in the right direction and very timely?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend makes two pertinent points on the basis of his considerable experience. As I said, it is not unusual for this much-loved, much-cherished national institution to attract political comment from all quarters from time to time. That is as it should be. We all do it from a position of wanting the best for the corporation and to ensure that it can survive and thrive for its next 100 years. My noble friend is right to reinforce the point that £3.7 billion from licence fee payers this year, at a time when people’s bills and costs of living are rising, is a fair settlement that enables the BBC to continue doing the excellent things that it does, but in a way that shows that it understands how businesses and households across the country are having to tighten their belts—looking at how they can do what they do more efficiently and get more bang for their buck.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement by the Secretary of State, which will have been welcomed outside in the country if not necessarily in your Lordships’ House. Does the Minister not agree that, in this day and age, when someone might buy a television with absolutely no intention of ever watching the BBC—given all the other choices that they will pay for—it is surely time for that proper debate on whether we can continue to fund the BBC in this arbitrary way that makes it impossible for some people to afford it?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that the way people are consuming their media is changing, and changing rapidly. I have spoken about the 700,000 fewer licence fees that have been bought over the last three years; that change is happening rapidly. It is essential that we have this debate so that we can protect the BBC to make sure that it continues to thrive alongside, and as part of, a changing media landscape. That is the reason why we want to start having this discussion well in advance of the next charter period.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
Listening to this debate, I think it is pretty clear that nobody who has spoken so far has suggested that there should not be any further consideration of how the BBC is funded, or that there should not be regular consideration of whether it is being supported in the right way. The noble Lord, Lord Grade, made a perfectly legitimate point when he referred back to actions during the time of the Blair Government. In doing so, he underlined the point that Governments of all colours and at all times have been periodically extremely irritated by the BBC. I do not refer to any particular accusation, but accusing the BBC specifically of party political bias is a very different matter from being irritated by how it behaves from time to time.
My questions to the Minister are these: does he think that, as this debate proceeds, it can now be conducted in a tone of generosity and impartiality rather than in the terms set by, shall we say, the Daily Mail? Will he also answer the questions that came from various Members of your Lordships’ House about whether he thinks that, on its current settlement, the BBC can, and indeed should, continue to deliver everything that it currently delivers? And if it cannot, what does he think it should stop doing?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I have said, the BBC is operationally as well as editorially independent, so it is up to the BBC to decide how it spends its settlement and how it continues to deliver for licence fee payers. That is a decision that is being repeated by many businesses and in many households across the country as people tighten their belts; it is important that they do so.
We spoke in our previous debate about the dangers of groupthink and the BBC’s own acknowledgment of the work that has to be done to ensure that it fully reflects the country that it serves, with the Serota review and other things. That work is to be welcomed and I think it was welcomed across your Lordships’ House. This is not a matter of party politics but of making sure that the BBC reflects the country that it serves and the people whose hard-earned money pays for its services.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if the BBC is to justify its fee, its news programmes must be honest and straightforward? Last weekend, there was a demonstration in London by people who were against compulsory vaccination. The BBC news reported it as being attended by “hundreds of people”. I saw it myself, repeated more than once—“hundreds of people”—when in fact there were thousands and thousands of people at the demonstration who could be clearly seen on another channel at the same time as the BBC was saying that there were only hundreds. What does that do to the BBC’s credibility, and what will all those people who attended that demonstration, or watched the comparison on television, think about the BBC and the licence fee?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The number of people attending protests is often disputed by the people who take part, the police and the reports that are made of them, so I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I am not drawn into my assessment of the protest or of the reports. The BBC is editorially independent. It reports the news in an independent way; it grapples with often highly politically charged issues as it does so, and it has a means for people who feel that its bulletins are not fair to make their voices heard and seek redress. That is one of the reasons why it is so cherished.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The Minister did not answer the question of my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter as to the consequences of the licence fee not being adjusted for inflation over the next two years. What is he suggesting the BBC should cut?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I have said that, as the BBC is operationally independent, it is for the BBC to decide how it spends its settlement of £23 billion over the settlement period, and how it serves the people who are funding it.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister seems to indicate that freezing the BBC licence fee could be used as a cost-saving measure to help those who have to meet rising costs as part of the cost of living increase. Does the Minister not agree that it would be much better if the Government were to reduce, and not bring forward the increase in, national insurance contributions—as a measure of dealing with the cost of living increases and ensuring that the BBC continues to provide a good level of fair and equal broadcasting right throughout the UK?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness will, I hope, appreciate that decisions on other departments’ areas and how the Government can help people with the cost of living are not for me. However, I hope I infer from her comments that she welcomes the decision that the Secretary of State has taken to do our bit to help people with the rising costs of what otherwise would have been a licence fee increase to £180 by 2027.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about the Secretary of State should perhaps be put in the context of the fact that she has a history of attacking the BBC, and her appointment to her current post was akin to giving a child the keys to the sweet shop.
Almost 80% of school-age children use BBC Bitesize, the UK’s only free-to-use comprehensive education resource portal as a regular part of their learning. During the Covid peaks, BBC lockdown learning attracted an average of four and a half million users to the online resources specially developed to support home schooling at a time when the Government were failing to provide enough laptops or broadband to disadvantaged families. No commercial broadcaster would provide these services gratis. Has any assessment been made of the impact of the licence fee freeze on the BBC’s education output?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that the services provided by BBC Bitesize and more widely were a lifeline to people including those who were home schooling during lockdown, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. However, I point to the comments of my right honourable friend the Secretary of state in another place when she made this Statement. She was very glad to defend the BBC and to say that she wanted it to continue to thrive for another 100 years. That is why we want to have the open discussion that we need to make sure that its funding model can sustain it in a changing landscape; that is important and, as I have said, I look forward to having that debate with noble Lords.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in her Statement, the Secretary of State said that she
“had to be realistic about the economic situation facing households up and down the country.”—[Official Report, Commons, 17/1/22; col. 39.]
What consideration might the Government give to introducing a rebate scheme for those on lower incomes, as applies with council tax, so that the licence fee might better reflect the ability to pay?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will take the noble Lord’s interesting point back to the department and discuss it with my colleagues there.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill
Tuesday 25th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill 2021-22 View all Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 51-I Marshalled list for Committee - (21 Jan 2022)
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I very much support Clause 1 being part of the Bill, but I want briefly to record how big a decision this is. Just 11 years after the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was put on to the statute book, with much criticism and objection to it at the time—it was done in the shortest period of time and, as we know from other sources, was decided in a very short period by the coalition partners—we are saying that it should now be repealed. This must be the shortest existence of any major constitutional Act.
I mention that so that we learn, I hope, at least one lesson from it: that major constitutional Bills should not be introduced in anything like the way this one was. At the very least, there should be some attempt to achieve consensus on them if they are to endure. Of course, normally, there should surely be pre-legislative scrutiny. The Act has no friends, as evidenced by the fact that there are no amendments to Clause 1. Clause 1 is terrific; I thought that we should start on a happy note.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, Evelyn Waugh once said that the problem with the Tory party is that it
“never put the clock back by a single second.”
Is it not rather wonderful that it is now putting the clock back by 11 whole years?
Lord Norton of Louth
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, the Government have a manifesto commitment to get rid of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. The Opposition also have a manifesto commitment to repeal it. This Bill repeals the Act and seeks, as we have just heard, to restore the status quo ante. Like my later amendments, Amendment 1 is designed to ensure that the Bill does precisely that.
Amendment 1 makes it explicit that the prerogative power to dissolve Parliament and call a new Parliament falls within the personal prerogative of the sovereign. Since the 17th century, the powers that remain with the Crown and have not been displaced by statute have come to be exercised in the name of the Crown or by the monarch, acting on the advice of Ministers. There are three personal, or reserve, prerogative powers remaining—that is, where the monarch does not act on advice—although two are governed by conventions of the constitution. Until the enactment of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, the power to dissolve Parliament was a prerogative power that was not exercised on advice. A Prime Minister requested Dissolution but the monarch was not bound to accede to the request. Although the practice was to grant the request, there were circumstances in which it could be envisaged that the monarch could refuse it.
As is well known, there was some uncertainty as to what those circumstances may be. In 1950, the King’s private secretary, Alan Lascelles, wrote anonymously to the Times identifying circumstances in which a request for a Dissolution may be refused. Prime Ministers were not able to take it as given that a request would be granted. My understanding is that, in 1993, No. 10 contacted the palace to check that, in the event of the Government being defeated on the Motion on the social protocol of the Maastricht treaty, which the Prime Minister had made a vote of confidence, a request for Dissolution would be granted. As the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act reported:
“As far as we can tell, since the Second World War, UK Prime Ministers only requested a dissolution once it was very clear the Monarch would grant it.”
There is an argument that the power to dissolve Parliament should not be within the sovereign’s gift. There is an argument that it should be. I believe it important that a Prime Minister does not have the capacity in all circumstances to determine the date of a general election. This, however, is not the occasion for that argument. If the Bill is to restore the status quo ante, it is not a question of whether the power should reside with the sovereign but, rather, a case of ensuring that the Bill puts it beyond doubt that it does so.
This amendment would, therefore, put on the face of the Bill that the prerogative to dissolve Parliament and call a new Parliament is a personal prerogative. The motivation for it stems from the Government’s initial list of Dissolution principles, referring to the sovereign acting on advice. As the Joint Committee recommended:
“If the Government wishes to restore the Monarch’s personal prerogative fully, it needs to revise the language in its dissolution principles, so that it is clear the Prime Minister has no power to advise a dissolution, but only to request one. The Government should replace references to ‘advice’ on dissolution with ‘requests’ for dissolution since the Monarch must accept Prime Ministerial advice.”
The Government took this on board; the Explanatory Notes to this Bill refer to the sovereign granting Dissolution
“on the request of the Prime Minister.”
However, it is worth quoting what the Government said in their response to the Joint Committee’s report:
“In repealing the FTPA, we are returning to a position whereby the power to dissolve Parliament is exercised solely by the Sovereign as a ‘personal prerogative power’. We are grateful to the Committee for its scrutiny of how this is described in the dissolution principles paper, and agree that the better description is that the Prime Minister ‘requests’ a dissolution.”
The wording rings an alarm bell. “Requests” is not a “better description”. It is a correct statement of the constitutional position that pertained prior to the enactment of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act in September 2011. To say that “requests” is a “better description” than “advice” is to convey that it is simply a choice of words to convey the same thing. If the Government accept that the power to dissolve is a “personal prerogative power”, it is not a power exercised on advice. The wording of the Government’s response does not instil confidence in the grasp of Ministers and officials of the principles governing our constitutional arrangements.
Given that, I believe that there is a case for putting it beyond doubt that it is a personal prerogative power. At the very least, this debate provides an opportunity for the Minister to put it on the record at the Dispatch Box that it is a personal prerogative power. However, I see no reason why it should not be in the Bill. The Government are committed to restoring the position as it stood prior to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act taking effect. The amendment does not challenge that; rather, it would ensure that it is achieved. I beg to move.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord for elucidating this issue and tabling the amendment. In the Joint Committee, it was worrying that the Government did not initially seem to understand the distinction between requesting a Dissolution and advising a Dissolution, advice that would be binding on the sovereign. I entirely exempt the ministerial reply today from that criticism—the Minister is indeed a former member of the Constitution Committee, which also considered this—but we certainly considered it necessary to explore a little more fully and to criticise the wording of the Dissolution Principles document, the one-page analysis of the issue that made the specific mistake to which the noble Lord made reference.
The refusal of a Dissolution is the only remaining restraint on the ability of a Prime Minister to foreshorten a Parliament in circumstances that might be either entirely appropriate or, in some cases, at least questionable. Subsequent government writing, such as appears in their response to the Joint Committee, indicates that the Government recognise that there are circumstances in which it might be inappropriate to grant a Dissolution, such as a Prime Minister seeking a rerun of an election that has not quite gone according to plan and has not delivered the overall majority that was sought.
Another possibility is the 1974 situation, which I remember vividly because I was elected first in October 1973 and then in February 1974. Ted Heath was unable to establish a coalition, because we did not want to form a coalition with him, so Harold Wilson became Prime Minister. Was he advised that it would be premature to go to the palace and seek an immediate Dissolution? I have no idea, but he did not do so. He took the rather shrewder step of spending about nine months trying to demonstrate that you could have a sanitised Labour Government who did not do any of the things that people worry about Labour Governments doing, and was therefore able to go to the country in a slightly stronger position in October that year. Thankfully, I was re-elected but with a majority of only 70-odd, if I remember rightly; I survived to tell the tale another day. There are circumstances like that in which the issue is a questionable one, and that is why it is important to defend the personal prerogative power.
There are ways of addressing this issue but they do not seem likely to find their way into the legislation as it will eventually be passed. We will discuss Motions of the House of Commons later. They would provide some restraint on a Prime Minister but not very much. Considering that this might not find its way into the final legislation, it is even more important that we protect the ability of the sovereign to decline to give a Dissolution in exceptional circumstances.
Of course, a power like that is more important for what happens behind the scenes than for any possibility that it would be fully exercised and the sovereign would actually have to do it. We are talking about a situation in which the Prime Minister would be advised that it would be unhelpful, inappropriate and potentially damaging to the position of the monarchy to raise the issue at this precise point and, if it was going to be raised, it would be much better to raise it later or at a better moment. Those are the kinds of conversations that surround the few personal prerogative powers that still exist.
The system depends on something that is sadly lacking at the moment, which is a great deal of trust. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the Commons said that
“some mix of statute and convention is the best way for this area to be governed, but this requires the actors involved to act in ways which engender trust.”
That has not been happening very much lately, so we should look at this with some care.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, has done the right thing by tabling the amendment. I am not entirely persuaded that it makes a difference because my view is that it is a personal prerogative and, unless Parliament legislates it away, it is still there. However, first, it is highly desirable that it becomes clear that the Government understand the position that it is a request, not advice; and, secondly, if there is a general feeling in the House that it needs to be included in the Bill, we can do so. If not, we simply recognise that this is the position and that it has not been changed if we revert to the status quo ante.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said and with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. I am not sure it is hugely important but, because the issue of “advice” as opposed to “request” has reared its head as early as this, I want to make what seems to me to be a self-evident unarguable point, although I have been unable to persuade everyone that it is. Although the assumption prior to 2011 was that the Prime Minister went to the monarch with a request—in other words, it gave the monarch the decision as to whether or not to accept the request for Dissolution—the overwhelming evidence in my lifetime, and that of others of similar age in this Committee today, is that in practice it is inconceivable that an elected Prime Minister could go to the monarch and say, “I think we should go to the country” and the monarch would say no. Incidentally, that is hardly a disastrous request; the notion sometimes seems to come out in these discussions that asking for a general election is somehow an affront to democracy.
It is inconceivable to me that the monarch would say no, and historically, at least in modern times, it has just never happened. There may have been chats behind the scenes but there is no doubt that it would be a constitutional crisis of enormous magnitude if the Prime Minister of the day went to the monarch and said, “Please can I have a general election?”—or, to put it more accurately, “Please can the people resolve this difficulty that Parliament is in?”—and the hereditary monarch, who we must at all costs keep out of politics, said no. That is about the most politically contentious decision that any monarch could make.
It has always been an assumption of most people in these debates that at all costs we must protect the monarch from making those kinds of decisions. To me, it is a slam-dunk case that the monarch in modern times has had advice from the Prime Minister because in practice it has been inconceivable that the monarch would ever say no.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, we are very much indebted to the noble Lord for his background in this matter. It is important to remember that there are Dissolution principles to be settled before this situation arises. From time to time they have been revised, but I do not think they have been revised for some time now, and obviously it is appropriate that they should be before a further action is required.
It seems there is an academic argument about whether, once the prerogative powers are stopped as they were by the original Act, they can be revived—and this academic discussion occupies quite a lot of pages. So far as I am concerned, if Parliament says, “You go back to where you were before we did this”, that seems perfectly possible and should be followed. I therefore agree with my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth that it is desirable to put that in the Bill. I do not think it is at all likely that anything of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has mentioned is likely to arise, because the Dissolution principles make that very plain. It is in the form of a request because of its importance, but it will be taken in accordance with principles that are well settled. I very much support this proposal and the basis on which it rests.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, if I may intervene in this debate, I think it is still important that what used to be the custom and convention be clarified on paper. This is for a very simple reason. While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that it is inconceivable that a monarch could refuse the request of a Prime Minister, there is always a possibility. For example, in India, which has a constitution based very much on British lines, the president is elected by the Parliament, and very often he or she is a partisan person and would be unable to refuse the Prime Minister under any circumstances. We have to reserve the power of the monarch. If what the Prime Minister is saying does not smell good when he or she is asking for a dissolution, the monarch should have the power to say no.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I agree with all those who have said that my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has done us a very considerable service. He reminded us of the formidable words of Alan Lascelles, private secretary to George VI in 1950. We should, at all times, keep those Lascelles words in mind:
“It is surely indisputable (and common sense) that a Prime Minister may ask—not demand—that his Sovereign will grant him a dissolution of Parliament; and that the Sovereign, if he”—
or, we should add, she—
“so chooses, may refuse to grant this request.”
It is the existence of this power that has ensured, and will continue to ensure, that no Prime Minister has asked improperly for a dissolution in our history.
Lord Lexden (Con)
I do not think I could make a list of the possibilities. One can conceive of them, but we trust to the existence of this power and the wisdom of the monarch to ensure that no improper dissolution is likely ever to be brought forward.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I intervene briefly because this is a very interesting debate and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for having tabled his amendment. We are all here because we recognise that the 2011 Act was a mistake. However, I am a little puzzled by the noble Lord’s amendment because he prefers to insert the word “personal” when, up to now, we have simply referred to it as the royal prerogative. Indeed, I am grateful to the Minister, who in a Written Answer to me yesterday defined the royal prerogative; I have it in front of me but do not need to read it out. The Minister refers to the royal prerogative just in those terms and not in any way as “personal”. Therefore, when the noble Lord, Lord Norton, responds to this debate, I would be grateful if he—or indeed the Minister—could tell us whether there is any difference between the phrases “royal prerogative” and “personal prerogative”.
While I am on my feet, I join other noble Lords in saying that, when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, it brought back to me what happened in 1974. However, I do not think that anyone would expect the monarch to refuse a dissolution, although it is inherent in the nature of this Bill that the monarch might take that fatal step.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, may be that, if something was clearly in contradiction to the dissolution principles, it would be wrong. The idea must be that the Prime Minister would exercise his power to request within the framework provided by the dissolution principles.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak only briefly. This short debate shows how, although we have five groups of amendments, they are all quite interdependent: they are all involved with the same issue. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, has done us a service tonight. He has indicated what the Government say they are trying to achieve: to reset the clock to where we were prior to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. The reason why we have amendments down tonight is the lack of certainty that the legislation as drafted actually achieves that. I do not think there is any difference across the House about where we are trying to get to; rather, the issue is whether the vehicle being used does what it says on the tin, and that is why I am grateful to the noble Lord.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who contributed to what has been an important and interesting debate. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth for bringing it forward, and I also welcomed the opportunity to talk to him about it. What I am going to say on the record is, I hope, a response to that discussion and to matters raised in this debate. I was struck by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Beith, in an elegant and thoughtful contribution, envisaged circumstances where the reserve power could apply. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that it was inconceivable. The reality is, as we will discuss later, that the Government’s belief, and the traditional practice, is that the reserve power has an important constitutional role.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, had a little go at another Second Reading speech at the start. I agree, of course, with what he said and with what my noble friend Lord Lexden said. I also agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said last time around. It is absolutely true that the 2011 Act was, in her words, clearly designed for a specific purpose at a specific time: to protect the coalition Government from instability. I freely acknowledge the wisdom and accuracy of those words.
There is general support for the Bill, and I welcome that. I cannot encourage the noble Baroness opposite to think that all the amendments are clarifying. I think some of the discussions we have had would involve driving a coach and horses through the Government’s intentions on the Bill, as I hope to persuade the House later.
Turning to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norton, I repeat that I am grateful to him for tabling it. Clause 2 was carefully drafted to put beyond doubt that the prerogative powers relating to the dissolution and calling of Parliament will be revived. As my noble friend Lord Norton outlined, these are prerogative powers that are personal or reserve prerogative powers, meaning that they belong to the person of the sovereign, acting in the sovereign’s individual capacity. The noble Lord has also sought to place on record and beyond doubt that the dissolution prerogative power is not exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister but is instead a request made to the sovereign. I can assure him that that is the Government’s position.
Turning specifically to Dissolution, the Government have recognised in response to the Joint Committee, for whose work we are extremely grateful, that this personal prerogative is exercised by the sovereign on the request of the Prime Minister, not on their advice. I am pleased to reassure your Lordships that the Government fully accept this accurate characterisation and are grateful for the Joint Committee’s considered conclusions on that point and the submissions made in the debate.
I hope that very clear statement on the record will gratify and ease the concerns of my noble friend Lord Norton and others. I therefore thank him again for tabling the amendment as it has given the Government an opportunity to clarify this point in Parliament, and given this Committee the opportunity to debate this aspect of the constitution. I hope my statement has provided sufficient clarity on the nature of the Dissolution prerogative so that my noble friend may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to everyone who has spoken. It has given rise to a very valuable debate with some very helpful interventions. I take the point of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern that there is an extensive academic argument about whether the prerogative can be revived. I am very much in favour of academic debates taking place, since if they did not, I would be out of a job. From my point of view, the one good thing that came out of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was the number of articles I managed to publish on the subject.
Today, however, is the occasion for that debate about the prerogative being revived. I accept that the Bill achieves what it is designed to do: to provide that the prerogative comes back and to put it beyond doubt because of that academic debate about whether it could or could not. This establishes that it does. That has to be our starting point because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, it is designed to restore the status quo ante. Therefore, the purpose of my amendment is to achieve clarity of that purpose and that it is a personal prerogative, the distinction I drew —in response to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate—in opening. It is one of only three prerogative powers that the monarch does not exercise on advice.
I deliberately quoted the report of the Joint Committee, which the noble Lord, Lord Beith, referred to, in relation to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, raised: the practice is that the monarch has acceded to requests for Dissolution. I was also trying to touch on the fact that No. 10 has contacted the palace in advance to make sure that it will be granted. I always think that is a useful deterrent; it makes the Prime Minister think about it. There is now the convention that Ministers do not act in a way that would embarrass the Crown, so there is some restraint there. There is a useful purpose in its existing in the same way that, formally, the monarch does not appoint the Prime Minister. That, again, is one of the powers not exercised on advice. There are certain elements there that remind Ministers that there is a higher authority to which they are responsible. There is a purpose in it and a useful role, but that is a wider debate. My starting point is that the purpose of the Bill is to restore the status quo ante and my amendment is focused on that. It is working within the purpose of the Bill and what it is designed to achieve.
As I said in opening, I was keen to get the Minister to put on record at the Dispatch Box that it is a personal prerogative power. Therefore, that is a necessary condition. I will need to reflect on whether it is a sufficient one, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
(1A) The Prime Minister may not request Her Majesty to exercise Her prerogative to dissolve Parliament if Parliament has been prorogued, unless Parliament is first recalled and the House of Commons agrees that the Prime Minister should request Her Majesty to exercise Her prerogative to dissolve Parliament.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, quite a lot of what we will discuss this evening is how far we need to put into statute the sort of things the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, has been thinking about, or whether a revised version of the Cabinet Manual would be sufficient to set out the conventions agreed by the parties. We will come back to that later.
Looking through the 2004 report of the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Taming the Prerogative: Strengthening Ministerial Accountability to Parliament, I note that there was a memorandum from the Treasury Solicitor’s Department on the royal prerogative, which listed as one of the prerogatives
“the summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament”
as a single interconnected power.
The Government have said that Prorogation is outside the scope of the Bill and is an entirely separate car. The reasons, going back to why in 2010-11 Prorogation was taken out, seem relatively clear. The Lords Constitution Committee then said that
“the risk of abuse of the power of prorogation is very small”.
The Government said in the debates on the Bill that
“The conventions of this House are sufficiently strong”—[Official Report, Commons, 18/1/11; col. 768.]
to make inclusion of the power of Prorogation on a statutory footing unwise and unnecessary. Opinions would now differ. As the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, pointed out, no Prime Minister has asked improperly for a Dissolution, but the question of whether a Prime Minister has asked improperly for a Prorogation is very much open.
The noble Lord, Lord True, and other Ministers have enjoyed referring to our tried and tested constitutional system. If one looks back at arguments over Prorogation, there were riots throughout the country in 1820 against Prorogation. In 1831, when the Lords were about to debate whether there should be a Motion to prevent Prorogation, William IV jumped into a rather inferior carriage and came down personally to prorogue Parliament. In 1854, an MP proposed an address to the Queen against Prorogation, which Lord Aberdeen as Prime Minister made a matter of confidence in order to prevent. “Tried and tested” is, perhaps, a little strong.
I ask the Minister in general terms for an assurance that a revised edition of the Cabinet Manual, which I hope is now well under way, will clarify that there is now a well-established convention—tried and tested, even—over the last century that Prorogation is now a prerogative power available for use only in marking the short recess period between parliamentary Sessions, and that this should not be used as a prelude to a request for Dissolution that has not been communicated to nor approved by Parliament. Nor should it be used, as it has not been for the past century, as a means of avoiding parliamentary scrutiny, proposals or decisions over any extended period.
Perhaps I may be permitted to say a little about the broader issues behind this debate since my amendment is linked to the broader amendment which follows. The desirability of reaching as wide a consensus as possible has been stated in a range of reports relating to this Bill. The 2004 committee report said that the case for the reform of ministerial executive power is “unanswerable”. Indeed, opposition Conservatives including William Hague gave evidence to that committee in support of further limits on executive power. Perhaps the young Nicholas True wrote some of the evidence which he gave; I do not know.
The Minister’s response to the Constitution Committee last December said, rather more weakly, I thought:
“Political consensus is of course valuable when possible”
without, so far as I am aware, promoting any active cross-party consultations on the constitutional issue. I regret that. This is a major constitutional Bill; therefore there needs to be as much consensus as we can achieve.
The fact is that, week by week, we begin to approach the idea that this Government might not necessarily be in power beyond the next election, which could conceivably produce a Parliament in which no single party has a majority. We are concerned not just with addressing the flaws in the 2011 Act but with future-proofing, as various committees have talked about, so that we are prepared for a situation that we might face with the outcome of the next election.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, the amendment in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Lansley, is about the constitutional location of power today and for the next 80 to 100 years. It is not about where, historically speaking, power in Parliament used to rest. It is about now, at the beginning of this century, after at least half a century in which the powers of the Prime Minister have been accreting at an alarming and chilling rate. I will not go through the endless efforts I have made to draw your Lordships’ attention to that fact, but it is a fact.
I was not able to speak at Second Reading but the issue of troublesome prerogative powers relating to Dissolution and Prorogation formed the basis of my contribution to the debate on the Queen’s Speech. I know that I am not taking the Minister by surprise because he and I have had many rather interesting discussions about the constitutional issues. It is important that I add this too: when I made that speech, the present Prime Minister was riding high in the polls. This is nothing to do with the fact that he has troubles abounding at the moment—Prime Ministers always run into trouble at some time. It is not about the present Prime Minister; it is about the person, whoever that might be, who holds this office not being given further power, as the Bill proposes.
We should not have a fixed-term Parliament. We all agree on that. There should be a maximum period. Five years is what is proposed and it makes perfect sense. What did not make sense last time was the proposal that a two-thirds majority was needed in the Commons for that term to come to an end. It did not make sense because of something that should have been absolutely obvious to everybody. I am sorry to say that to those who advocate for it. Just about every important piece of legislation enacted in Parliament has required a bare majority. Nobody set about trying to have two-thirds majorities; a bare majority would do. The Great Reform Act had a majority of two. The Habeas Corpus Act, where all our freedoms were determined, passed because the noble Lord acting as a Teller for one side counted a big fat Peer as 10 and so it was carried. That is what our liberties have turned on. My point is that a two-thirds majority is an aberration.
The question is: how do we replace the legislation? We have had the beginning of a fascinating discussion: do the current proposals revive the prerogative power? Fun—the noble Lord, Lord Norton, can get his students to write endless essays, all getting Firsts if they agree with him, on this subject. But this is the point: whatever the theory might be, the reality is that the power of Dissolution will now be based on statute—this statute, which might be changed. Prerogative power does not get elevated out of thin air; it is founded on the statute.
In answer to one or two of the matters raised in the noble Lord’s Amendment 1, whether the theory is that the Prime Minister gives Her Majesty—the monarch, rather—advice or a request, it seems to me, and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, absolutely impossible to understand that the monarch of the day would be prepared to enter into tempestuous political controversy, threatening the very existence of the monarchy, if the prime ministerial advice or request was rejected. It seems inconceivable. It might have been possible when the Lascelles letter was written to the Times in 1950. It was never put to the test; it never arose. In my view, it is inconceivable. If my view is right, here in the 21st century, the current legislative proposal in this Bill is that the decision whether Parliament should be dissolved would be vested exclusively in the Prime Minister of the day. Today, in a modern democracy, an uncurbed power to have Parliament dissolved—it is rather astonishing to think about it.
Of course, as was said in an earlier debate, it is perfectly true that the Prime Minister, in making his or her decision, has to be mindful of the possible adverse reaction of the electorate if they choose to think that his or her idea of having an election is a bad one. Of course it is, but whether the public do or not, general elections are about the next five years. The election arrives and a decision is made on the health service, the education system, the Armed Forces. It is not just about this single decision made by the Prime Minister. So I go this far with the argument against me: okay, the Prime Minister would take into account possible adverse reactions from the electorate if the electorate do not want an election. But this is not a principle; it is simply a matter of prime ministerial judgment. It is not constitutional control; it is the Prime Minister making a purely political decision: “Where does the balance of advantage to me and my party lie?”
It will also be suggested—it has been suggested to me and I have read it pretty frequently—that recent events in the Commons in the context of Brexit underline the need for this prime ministerial power. The Brexit debates were hardly a model of clarity but let us remember what they reflected: a huge parliamentary and, indeed, national divide, splitting parliamentary parties themselves, in the context of the constitutional aberration of a referendum, with the Dissolution process itself governed by the requirement for a two-thirds majority rather than a simple majority, which, as I said a moment ago, altered parliamentary processes and, indeed, strategies. In constitutional terms, the Brexit shambles demonstrated the folly of a two-thirds majority being superimposed on the result of a referendum that was not welcome to a majority in the House of Commons. That is not a sufficient justification for reviving or creating—it does not matter what you call it—this unrestricted power over the length of the life of the Parliament for the Prime Minister of the day.
These arguments overlook something so obvious that it is not merely in danger of being overlooked, it is being overlooked. I am not going to let it be overlooked. The Dissolution of Parliament eradicates the choice made by millions of citizens when they cast their votes at the previous election and chose who would represent them in the House of Commons. That sounds over- dramatic, but I invite your Lordships to think about it, because that is what it means.
To ensure continuing democratic involvement, to ensure that we live in a democracy and to enable us all to reflect on where power should lie, of course there has to be a finite time for each Parliament. That is a necessity in a democracy. But when the Dissolution is not a consequence of the effluxion of time but is simply based on a unilateral prime ministerial decision, the votes at the earlier general election are wiped out. The earlier democratic decision is revoked. One vote trumps millions of votes. To me, in a democracy there is a certain level of absurdity about such a principle. If this Bill passes unamended, the effect of those votes will be revoked by—and I am choosing a word used recently by the Delegated Legislation Committee—diktat. If you do not like “diktat”, call it decree, call it command, call it whim, call it fancy. I do not mind what you call it. but it is one person’s decision—unconstrained and unrestricted—by an assessment of political advantage.
Surely in the 21st century the exercise of power to change and to ditch the democratic vote should at least be subject to a modicum of control. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Norton, offered the possible control of the monarch and, for the reasons I have given, I respectfully suggest that that is not sufficient. Surely we should rest some responsibility on the House of Commons of the day—the elected representatives. That is what the Commons is there to do: to control and to keep an eye on the Executive and to keep a particular eye on the accreting power of the Prime Minister.
This is something that we cannot just accept on the basis that a prerogative power is being revived. This is going to be a statute.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord True, and he is right that this is an important Bill. I very much welcome the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act—I was never a fan and I am pleased to see it go.
I hesitate to disagree on any occasion with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, but I am not sure that I follow his logic entirely. Maybe that is because of the political experience that some of us have seen and felt when Prime Ministers have not always got these things right and have not always chosen the right minute to have an election. My noble friends Lord Grocott and Lord Rooker will well remember 1978 when Jim Callaghan did not have an election at a time when people thought it might be advantageous and subsequently lost a few months later. Gordon Brown did not have an election in 2009 and subsequently lost a year later.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is right that this is about the constitutional location of power, but it is also about the role of the Executive and the legislature. Yes, the legislature is there to hold the Government to account—a very important function. If I was in the House of Commons at the moment, having been given a vote by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act I think I would have wanted to hold on to that vote to say whether an election should take place. I thought that that might have been one of the compromises that was reached during the consideration of this Bill by the Government and when the Joint Committee looked at it. I am surprised that the Commons gave up so easily the power to have a say and to sanction the calling of a general election.
It would not necessarily have been a simple thing to do. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, mentioned the two-thirds majority that was clearly just part of the political fix of the original deal between the Conservatives and the Liberals after the 2010 election, and that is a non-starter. However, I wonder whether he would say that the majority had to be 50% plus one of those voting on the issue or 50% of the whole House plus one. What would the Motion be and what would the role of the Speaker be in terms of a tied vote? We have to consider all those arrangements. I do not think it is a simple issue although, had I been in the Commons when this Bill was going through, I would have been very reluctant to give any say whatever in terms of when an election should take place.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to contribute to this debate. I signed Amendment 3 together with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and other noble Lords.
I do not come to this as a constitutional expert—far from it—but I think I bring to it two objectives. One is to think about it from the practical, political point of view. In this House we have encountered, and will continue to encounter, the prerogative power being increasingly clarified by statute. I start with that point, which I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred to. When we see the prerogative being clarified by statute, my view is that we should try to make it a watertight statute. We should try to make it absolutely clear. In this particular respect, we are looking at something that is clear only in so far as it reasserts that there is the status quo ante. However, the status quo ante itself is not necessarily clear. We have a set of principles which—as we have discovered, and I have discovered, by listening to the debates and reading them in the other place—are themselves debatable about how they would be applied and in what circumstances they would be applied. Even in the first debate this afternoon, we heard the assertion that it would be inconceivable for the monarch to refuse a request for a Dissolution but equally, there may be circumstances in which such a request may be refused, otherwise what is the point of calling it a request?
It is not certain. My view is that when we encounter prerogative whether we were debating the Trade Bill and looking at the prerogative to make treaties—I have a Private Member’s Bill which would clarify in statute the circumstances in which the Government could enter into a prolonged and substantial armed conflict or declare war—or here, I think we should be prepared to be more specific about the circumstances in which this prerogative is to be used.
I come back to the practical and political. First, there is a manifesto commitment. The Conservative manifesto said:
“We will get rid of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act”.
Amendment 3 also enables that to happen. That is not the issue.
Secondly, the Joint Committee put forward the proposition that constitutional change should secure
“as wide a degree of cross-party agreement as possible”.
My personal view is that Amendment 3 would enable that to happen. It is supported by parties in this House. Although it will not commend itself to my noble friends on these Benches, it would be supported by the Scottish nationalists, who are not represented here; they said so in the other place. However, I was rather disappointed that when the Government responded to the Joint Committee, they did not address that point; they did not say that they were looking to secure as wide a degree of cross-party support as possible.
What we have to do, which the Joint Committee asked for, is expose the Bill to the fullest possible scrutiny. Looking at the debate in the other place, I do not think that this issue, which seems central, received that, so I am pleased that we are giving it an opportunity to be thought about very carefully.
I recall that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and its implementation fell down on the two-thirds majority. We should remember that there were three occasions in 2019 on which a Motion was presented in the other place and secured a simple majority but not a two-thirds majority. That immediately begs the question: was that the extent of the problem? Certainly, a simple majority enables us to start to think about how crises should be resolved and by whom, but it is that fundamental point about “by whom” that I come back to. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, put it extremely well, but I shall put it in my own terms.
If a Prime Minister were requesting a Dissolution of Parliament and calling an election in circumstances where that would not be supported by a majority in the House of Commons, on what authority would he or she be doing that? If people cannot tell me what that authority is, we should put into the statute now that a Prime Minister should act with such authority. In all normal circumstances, based on our past experience, a Prime Minister will command a majority in the House of Commons and be able to secure a simple majority for such a Motion, and they would be able to have a Dissolution of Parliament at a time of his or her choosing.
However, I do not think that we can turn the clock back to past conventions and assume that they will be readily or easily applied to future circumstances. For example, coalitions have happened and may do so again, and they may be quite complicated. If we were in circumstances where a Prime Minister did not have a majority based on his or her own party and we were in the relatively early stages of a Parliament, by what authority would they circumvent the fact that an alternative Government was available?
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend about a situation where there was a hung Parliament, where the Prime Minister had no majority—we have had that experience very recently—where a pandemic was taking place and where the Opposition did not co-operate in passing laws. Surely then it would be right for the Prime Minister to seek the consent of the country.
Lord Lansley (Con)
There are many circumstances in which crises can emerge. There are arguments that cut both ways. In the midst of a pandemic, does one want an election? In the midst of a war, does one want an election? We could go back to 1940 and say, “Surely, if the Prime Minister then, Neville Chamberlain, had sought a Dissolution, why would he not have been granted it? Would it have not been right for the electorate to say what the outcome should be?” My response to my noble friend would be to ask whether in those circumstances it would not be the responsibility of the House of Commons, and whether it did not have the authority to resolve that crisis. If the answer we come to is, “Oh, but, but, but…”, there are all sorts of circumstances and hypothetical scenarios that we can conjure up which would lead us to the assumption that the Prime Minister can go to Her Majesty or the monarch and request a Dissolution, but the House of Commons would not support it. I come back to the same question: by what authority does the Prime Minister make such a request? I support the amendment and have put my name to it because it brings us back, time and again, to precisely that point.
Professor Robert Hazell put it more elegantly when he gave evidence to the Joint Committee:
“The best way of protecting the monarchy is not to revive the prerogative power but to leave decisions about Dissolution where they belong—in Parliament, in the House of Commons.”
This amendment does that in the simplest and most effective way possible by making it certain that if a Prime Minister requested a Dissolution in future, he or she did so on the basis that a majority of the House of Commons had agreed. If not, by what authority would he or she do it?
Lord Beith (LD)
This is an issue which divided the Joint Committee. The view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, was the view of a minority of the committee of which I was a member, whereas the majority did not want to go into this territory. We had a great deal of discussion about it, but the report records, unusually, that there was a clear difference of view.
I support the idea that there should be a House of Commons vote. Even though I previously supported ensuring that the prerogative power remained a personal prerogative, partly in case this amendment was not carried but also because the two are not inconsistent with each other, it would be even more inconceivable that the monarch should refuse a Dissolution if it had the clear authority of the House of Commons behind it.
A further benefit of having a House of Commons vote on Dissolution is that it makes it quite clear the ouster clause that we will debate later would be unnecessary. The courts would not interfere with a decision taken by Parliament. We can return to that topic later, but we might as well put it on the table now, because it is a powerful argument for having a House of Commons vote. I therefore support what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
There are circumstances in which a Prime Minister might be told that it would be embarrassing for the monarch to have to be asked because a Dissolution might be refused. That would include a re-run of an election that had just taken place. Let us imagine a situation where one party is known to have substantial resources and seeks a re-run of the election, because it is just about the largest party but does not have a majority. There are a variety of such circumstances. In their response to the committee, the Government quite sensibly said that it was impossible to speculate—I am not quoting exactly—about the many different possible situations that could arise, and it is not very fruitful to do so. We merely recognise that there are possibilities.
While so much is said about the failings of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act—I know that it has faults, but the two-thirds majority issue was probably the only significant fault in the legislation—we have to recognise that most democracies in any way comparable to ours have a fixed term for Parliament and that the Joint Committee said:
“The Fixed-term Parliaments Act very clearly fulfilled its immediate political purpose. Not only did the Parliament last the full term, so did the Coalition Government that was formed at the beginning of it.”
I simply say to the other parties that they should be careful what they wish for. The time may come when they seek to form a Government with others and both sides need some guarantee that the Government will not be torpedoed early in its existence.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I had added my name to Amendment 2 in the name of noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, but unfortunately it has not made it on to the Marshalled List that I have. I hope that is not an expression of editorial disapproval.
I congratulate the noble Lord on his ingenuity in bringing Prorogation within the scope of our discussions. As the Minister will know, I was a little sceptical about the view that Prorogation was outside the scope or relevance of the Bill. That was on two grounds. First, it was said that Section 6 of the 2011 Act excluded Prorogation. Of course, it may have excluded it, but what is excluded can be added by amendment.
The second ground of my scepticism was the intimate relationship between Dissolution and Prorogation. It is by no means unknown for Parliament to be dissolved while prorogued; I have not looked at the figures, but this may be the majority of cases in recent decades. Even if we go back to the relatively short period—the business period, as it were—of Prorogation after wash-up, there will be a period of time when the House of Commons cannot take a decision of the sort envisaged by my noble and learned friend in his Amendment 3. So I suggest that, although this may not be crucial, it is probably a useful procedural mechanism or precaution.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I do not often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, as he knows, but I did agree with his closing remarks on Second Reading:
“We should never take democracy for granted: it needs to be defended.”—[Official Report, 30/11/21; col. 1332.]
I absolutely agree, which is why it is important that the amendments in this group are not passed.
Sometimes, when people talk about democracy, they talk in terms of the role of Parliament or the separation of powers. But we must always remember that democracy is about the people—demos—who have power at the apex of our constitution and whom we have to defend. The most important players in our democracy are not Members of Parliament at Westminster but the voters up and down the land. The possibility of Parliament standing in the way of asking the people for their views on the way forward is fundamentally undemocratic, in my view.
These amendments are capable of depriving the people of their say in the future of the country. Furthermore, they could do harm at the very time that the views of the people, as expressed at the ballot box, are most needed and could have the greatest impact. Of course, if the Government of the day have a whopping majority, whether or not they have to pass a resolution in the other place will make very little difference to the outcome. It might perhaps add a few days of delay to the timing of a general election, but it would otherwise simply be a tiresome detail. But the amendment will make life difficult for minority Governments or Governments with small majorities, if they feel that they need to call an election.
At Second Reading, I spoke about the events of 2019 being one of my key reasons for supporting the Bill. It was plain that Parliament was dysfunctional. The Government could not get their chosen policies through the House due to a combination of the actions of the opposition parties and of some of our own Back-Benchers. A majority in the other place and indeed in your Lordships’ House—although that is not relevant to this amendment—was set upon frustrating the Government’s Brexit policies, but the Government could not call an election to settle that issue because they could not meet the two-thirds threshold of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.
Of course, the Government eventually got their Early Parliamentary General Election Act through and, by then, the Labour Party had decided to support it. But we will never know whether it would have been possible for the Government to have reached the simple majorities required in these amendments at an earlier stage—but it is entirely possible that they would not have done so. A number of my party’s MPs had lost the Conservative Whip during those unhappy days and would not, therefore, have been able to stand as Conservative candidates if an election had been called. Would the turkeys really have voted for Christmas? I think not.
Many noble Lords in this House might choose to forget the result of the 2019 election because it was not to their taste, but I remind them that it was a resounding thumbs up for the Government’s Brexit policies, which Parliament was seeking to harass and destroy at the time. These amendments could well have prevented that decisive view of the country from being expressed at the time, and we would have been the poorer for it.
Minority Governments with small majorities but fractious Back-Benchers capable of frustrating a vote on a general election are not figments of my imagination; they are a real part of our political system. I say this especially to the Benches opposite because, if they have any hopes of again forming a Government, they need to reflect on whether a zombie Parliament could affect them as well. They might also reflect on whether the minority Wilson Government in 1974, which the noble Lord, Lord Beith, referred to in the debate on the earlier group of amendments, would also have resulted in an election. Is it absolutely clear that the Wilson minority Government could have called the second election in that year if he had had to cope with what this amendment would have landed him with? These amendments could be a very dangerous part of our constitutional arrangements and should be rejected.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I feel part of an endangered species: a Cross-Bencher who fully supports this government Bill. I would also like to go back to where we were before the ill-starred and ill-judged Fixed-term Parliaments Act.
I am against giving the Commons a veto, as proposed in Amendment 3 by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, who is normally so sagacious but who is wrong on this occasion. This could lead to the same chaos, stasis and problem of September 2019, which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has just outlined, when we subjected our Prime Minister—whatever you thought of him then or think of him now—to the humiliation of having to go cap in hand to Brussels to plead for an extension of time to achieve a policy flatly contrary to the one that he wished to put to the country. He could not get a two-thirds majority, and one seriously doubts whether he would have got a simple majority.
The Joint Committee that examined this legislation and reported in March 2021 made plain that, although a minority supported the view outlined by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge and the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Beith, the majority recognised the danger, which we should avoid at all costs, I respectfully contend.
As to the prerogative power, one can hardly overstress the difference between Prorogation and Dissolution. Prorogation—let one remind oneself—affects the cessation of Parliament and is anti-democratic in the sense that it thwarts the power of Parliament. Our governing, imperative, fundamental constitutional principle is the sovereignty of Parliament; Prorogation thwarts it and leaves the Executive for the duration in uncontrolled power. Dissolution—at the opposite end of the spectrum—is explicitly designed to give the electorate the opportunity to decide who should control our Executive. My noble and learned friend Lord Judge speaks of Dissolution eradicating the decision of the electorate last time around, ditching the democratic vote. Well, of course, in one sense you are getting rid of an existing Parliament, but you are inviting more up-to-date views on what the public—who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, really should be controlling all our processes—want and whether they approve the particular policies in the particular circumstances in which Dissolution is sought.
Of course, if you put the Commons in control, although you run into the sort of difficulties that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, rightly identified, you get rid of the problems that others seem to suggest arise under Clause 3 here. There is no question then, obviously, of the courts’ supervisory jurisdiction. But—and we will come to this point of debate later—I suggest you really do not need to introduce the chaos of a Commons vote in support of Dissolution in order to avoid the risk of introducing the courts into the whole business.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, before I comment specifically on the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, I think that both the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, have misread what happened in 2019. What happened then would have happened had this amendment been passed, which was that a clear majority in Parliament voted for a general election—fact. On three occasions, they voted for a general election. A general election would have occurred under the terms of this amendment.
If I may say so, the politics of it are fairly obvious. If a Motion comes from a Prime Minister that there should be a general election, which is what this amendment suggests, the Government may not even have a majority, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested; there may be people opposed to the Government’s policies generally on their own Benches, and they may not get a majority of their own people, necessarily. But it is almost impossible for an Opposition to vote against a general election. It kills the whole point of being an Opposition. What is an Opposition for if not for saying, “We’ve got a rotten Government, and it is time the people turned them out”? The Labour Opposition at that time sat on its hands, but politically, though I cannot go into all the legal ramifications, it is impossible to imagine a Prime Minister with a majority in Parliament—and he or she would not be the Prime Minister if that were not the case—calling for a simple parliamentary majority, which is all that is required, in order to hold a general election and Parliament throwing it out. That is for the birds; it really is. It would be politics turned upside down.
I think the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, just nails it. I agree with it absolutely, partly because, when in doubt, you should opt for the simple solution, and there is nothing simpler than a simple majority. We get into all sorts of trouble, as other Members have said, when we require a two-thirds majority or an artificial majority. The public know what a majority is and, let us face it, the real fact of life is that a majority in Parliament—this is as close to Dicey as anyone could be—is power in the land, apart from on the day the general election is held. If Parliament tries to do things that do not have majority support, the majority has all sorts of ways of asserting its support.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, like everybody else who has spoken in the Committee so far today, I share the objective of returning to the status quo ante and repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. But as some noble Lords who heard me speak on Second Reading may know, I do so for different reasons from that which the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and most others have set out today. I supported the original legislation, and the reason why I think that it should be repealed is because something that I believed was a relinquishing of power to the electorate turned into a weapon that got used against the electorate, as my noble friend Lady Noakes has described.
That is why I think it is important that we go back to how we were before, rather than, at this point, seek to introduce something that would maintain a power that the House of Commons did not have before. I thought what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said when he introduced his amendment was interesting as he said this about where power lies. He carefully made the point that this was not about the current Prime Minister, this was about where power rests in this situation. Should it be with the Executive? Should it be with Parliament? I know that over the last few years the noble and learned Lord has raised many different examples of where there is an imbalance of power between the Executive and Parliament, and that there are some ways in which that needs to be looked at and that imbalance addressed.
I do not think we would be wise to try to introduce a power because of what happened a couple of years ago. The battle for power at that point, in 2019, between the Executive and Parliament was observed, in my view, by people outside Parliament as a battle that should not have taken place. It was power that should not rest in the hands of Parliament. Indeed, it should not rest, in a direct way if you like, in the hands of the Prime Minister. This was about a democratic mandate that was in need of being implemented. I think, for everybody’s interests, trying to introduce the amendment that has been proposed here would be unwise, and the best course of action would be to return to exactly what we had before.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I put my name to this amendment for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Like the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, I have been searching for credible arguments against it. I was therefore very grateful that the Minister circulated a letter, setting out the Government’s stance, in which I hoped I might find some credible arguments against it, even if I did not agree with them, but this is what the letter said. It said that it
“will not necessarily achieve the desired outcome”
and:
“Its long-term consequences … are untested.”
I may have got the logic wrong, but until something is implemented how can we know what its long-term consequences are? So I was not too troubled in my belief by that.
Then I read that it was a “novel element”. Anything that is change, by definition, has a degree of novelty to it, so that did not get us very far. It was then said that there could be “(unintended) consequences” without any suggestion of what they might be, so that did not get us much further. It then said it was a “constitutional innovation”. Well, yes—so? That did not get us any further. The letter then said that it had not been “fully considered” and constitutional change needed to be fully considered. Perhaps it had not been, but it has now, so that is not a credible argument. Finally, we had a typically empty threat from the noble Lord, Lord True:
“We are not doing a service to the elected chamber if we ask them to reconsider a question which they have squarely confronted and which they have decisively decided against.”
We might as well go home if we adopted that policy. We certainly would not have been voting against the police Bill at all if we accepted that. That is the sum total of the Government’s response on why we should oppose this amendment.
The further argument—which the Government did not use, incidentally—that I thought had some substance was advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. These are my words, not hers: MPs might refuse a Prime Minister an election because they feared for their own seats and so would act out of personal interest rather than the national interest. Against that theoretical possibility, surely there is the more likely possibility of a Prime Minister calling a premature election primarily to save his or her skin, rather than because they have considerations of the national interest uppermost in their mind.
In any event, surely, the constitutional position is that citizens vote for someone to represent them in Parliament, not for a Prime Minister. In my political lifetime, there have been five occasions on which the Prime Minister has changed during the lifetime of a Parliament without triggering a new election in any case. So voters have ended up with a Prime Minister who was not a prime ministerial candidate at the previous election and who has no personal, direct mandate from the electorate. MPs, by contrast, will be held to account by their electorates if they trigger an early election and so, in my view, the decision on whether to do so should rest with them.
I was going to respond to the noble Baroness in terms of what happened in 2019, but the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has done that extremely comprehensively. I would just say, going back to 1974, that the same arguments apply. Does anyone believe that in the autumn of 1974, if the House of Commons had been asked whether there should be an election, Harold Wilson would have been denied one? The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, gave the reasons. Oppositions are there to oppose, and they do not vote to keep their opponents in office—it is in the name. The key question which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised is by what authority does a Prime Minister decide, uniquely, when an election should be held, particularly, as I said earlier, if that Prime Minister was not the candidate for Prime Minister at the preceding general election? In my view, authority on when an election should be held should rest with the people who have been elected to run a Parliament. That is why I support this amendment.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, I am very puzzled by this debate. There have been words used such as “inappropriate”, “exceptional” and “misuse of power” to suggest that the Prime Minister of the day, when he or she asks the electorate to choose the Government, and where he puts his or her own tenure in No. 10 at risk, is somehow abusing his or her position. I do not understand what those likely positions might be where the Prime Minister of the day can be accused of abusing his or her power to go to the electorate. Nobody has yet produced an example of that. We know when the Prime Minister might want to do that—because they have no majority and want a majority, because they have a very small majority or because they want a mandate for a new policy, possibly—but none of those is an abuse of their power.
If I had read the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and instead of reading “election” and “Dissolution” had read “Prorogation”, I would completely understand. Of course, it would be an abuse of power to give the Prime Minister of the day the power to extend the life of Parliament, but I do not understand in what situation a Prime Minister can be accused, in these words, of inappropriate or exceptional misuse, by asking the electorate to choose the Government they want, and to put his or her own tenure at No. 10 at risk. I would be grateful if somebody could provide me with some examples.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I am glad to assist, but I would like to ask the noble Lord a question. I have already explained how a Prime Minister who wanted an election could get one, so the power remains with the Prime Minister.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I am sorry. God, I will be glad when we get rid of those for good.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, said that, somehow or other, there is a suggestion that the argument on this side or around the House is that a Prime Minister calling for a general election is bad, undemocratic or inappropriate. We are not saying that at all. We are saying that a Prime Minister would not be a Prime Minister unless he had a majority in the House of Commons, and the Prime Minister would get what he wanted. I apologise for the length of the intervention, but the question I want to ask the noble Lord is: if he feels this passionately about, as I understood it, the Prime Minister alone being able to make that decision, how could it possibly be the case, in his argument, that a monarch—unelected—could say no to the Prime Minister making a request of that sort?
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
I am very pleased that the noble Lord asked that question, because the debates this evening have said that we do not think the monarch could conceivably refuse a request for a Dissolution, as the noble Lord has already said. Other speakers have said that the House of Commons would never refuse a Dissolution; that was the thrust of the noble Lord’s speech and the speeches of other noble Lords. We are being asked to put in a brake on the power of the Prime Minister, but we are told that the brake will never be exercised. What is the point of that? I come back to my question: what are the most inappropriate examples of a Prime Minister abusing their power by calling an election? I can think of only two. First, they might, for party-political reasons, seek the advantage of going early because they think they can get a bigger majority. We know that the electorate are not stupid. There are, throughout the whole country, Brendas from Bristol who will react to that—we found this in February 1974 and in 2017.
The other reason which I thought might be in the minds of noble Lords is if the Prime Minister of the day wanted to go to the country with what they thought would be a sole populist or undemocratic programme, and they were worried that the electorate might vote for it. That poses two problems. First, it is denying the public the right to choose the Government and policy they want. If you really want to exercise an effective brake for that sort of reason, you need a different Bill, because this Bill is designed to end the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and go back to the status quo ante. I believe, as my noble friend the Minister said, that this clause to give the House of Commons a veto—otherwise there is no point in giving the provision to it—drives a coach and horses through this Bill.
Lord Beith (LD)
I shall seek to answer the noble Lord’s question. I go back to February 1974. Imagine that Harold Wilson had said, “I’ve become the Prime Minister. I don’t have a majority. Mine is the largest party. I want to rerun the election straightaway.” Add into that mix—which was not the case at the time—that he is the leader of the party that has the most substantial resources and has been the least damaged financially by the conduct of the election. But that is not what happened. Maybe Harold Wilson was advised that he should not do that, but that is the sort of circumstance that might be thought inappropriate.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
I just think that if you gave the House of Commons the opportunity to veto it, and the Government of the day simply could not get on with their business, which is what would probably happen, then we would have a problem. I come back to the point I made with my noble friend Lord Lansley: if you have a Government with a minority, or without a working majority, that Prime Minister may not be able to get the support of Parliament; but he or she needs it to be able to have an effective working Government.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord asked for an example of where a Prime Minister might illegitimately ask for a general election. I will give an example not a million miles away from our present circumstances. Let us suppose that 54 Conservative Members of Parliament expressed no confidence in the present Prime Minister, and there was then an election in the Conservative Party for an alternative leader, and that leader emerged. At that moment, the present Prime Minister decided that, rather than give up power, he would ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament so that there could be a general election. I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, that, in those circumstances, a majority in Parliament, which the Conservatives would have, would reject the proposal for a general election. That might be an imaginable circumstance. I am not in favour of this amendment—I would rather not have it at all—but that is a situation where I would rather that the majority in Parliament rejected the idea of an election than the Queen having to do it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I have a very vivid recollection of Harold Wilson’s problem when he was elected with less than a parliamentary majority. As noble Lords will know, he had a second election in that year. At that time, I was the Sheriff Principal of Renfrew and Argyll, and therefore I was a returning officer for the constituencies in Renfrew and in Argyll, so I was rather familiar with what was going on.
Harold Wilson, when he was elected first, had not got a majority. The opinion polls were not quite so prominent in those days as they are now, but there was quite a lot of speculation as to whether, if he took a second election, he would be better off or worse off. That was a decision that he had to make which would not necessarily have been the same as the balance of people in Parliament, because, if the theory of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, were right, they would be anxious to be the Government. But I fear that they had the rather suspicious feeling that they might not be the Government, and that in fact what might happen would be that Mr Wilson would get a better majority than he had up to that point. As the Committee knows, it was not quite like that either. To forecast what the vote in Parliament will be in the event of a Prime Minister wanting to call an election is by no means easy. It was very difficult in 1974, and I have no doubt that that sort of circumstance might occur again.
I have tried to look at this from the point of view of the construction of our constitution. We have three parts of the constitution: the Executive, the judiciary and the legislature. The business of the House of Commons—and this House, for that matter—is to legislate primarily and to hold the Government to account. The executive power is not in the House of Commons or in this House, and it should not be; something has gone wrong when that happens. The executive power is in the Executive.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked what the authority of the Prime Minister is if he or she has changed since the Parliament was elected. The authority is that he or she is the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister’s responsibility, subject to Her Majesty, is to be the head of the Executive. Therefore, the responsibility for taking executive decisions is, and should be, with the Prime Minister.
As I said, the idea that you can forecast the result of a vote in Parliament on this subject is extremely difficult if you take account of all the possible circumstances. I know that if you have an Opposition doing very well and the Government are looking a bit shaky, they will both want the same thing—but there are many other circumstances in which they will not want that.
I submit to your Lordships that we had in existence for many years a system under which there was no vote in the House of Commons at all. As far as I remember, apart from the Wilson year there was really no difficulty about the responsibility of calling an election. You just have to think what a responsibility the person who calls an election has. We had a slight example of that not long ago, when an election was called and the result was that the Prime Minister had a smaller majority—indeed, no majority at all—having started off with a majority. I do not think for a minute that the Prime Minister thought that was going to happen—it would be extraordinary if she did—but it did happen, and that is the responsibility of the Prime Minister.
I find it very difficult to see how that can be properly shared with anybody else. He or she has to take the responsibility to consult the public—the people. It is an executive call to start a general election, and surely the responsibility for doing that should be on the Prime Minister and not on the House of Commons. All Members of the House of Commons will have some kind of interest in what is going to happen. It does not necessarily follow that they want the good of the general population, although it might be disguised in that way. For example, I could see that as people age—as I certainly am—they may feel that they do not want to continue, whereas others are very anxious to keep their position. One has to have that kind of consideration in mind.
I have great difficulty in disagreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, with whom I have agreed many times in the past, but this is a fundamental point. My principal reason for thinking that this is not an appropriate amendment is that the responsibility of the Houses of Parliament is primarily to legislate and to keep account of the Government, but not to control an executive act except by legislating. This is not in any way a legislation; it is just a decision in the House of Commons that has no effect except as an executive decision.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a long and really interesting discussion, and it sums up the very reason for this amendment. When I spoke on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Norton, at the beginning, I said that one of the reasons I thought he had brought his amendment forward was to bring some clarity, and it is the same with this amendment in so many ways.
When I looked through the Hansard for the other place, one of the things that struck me—I mentioned this at Second Reading—was how often Ministers asserted as fact something that was really a ministerial opinion or judgment, and not actually a fact. The most crucial one was that the Bill will
“reset the clock back to the pre-2011 position with as much clarity as possible.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/9/21; col. 721.]
If it was that clear, we would not have the amendments before us tonight. It is not clear, and that lack of clarity has caused concern.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in what has rightly been a lengthy debate. Perhaps my concluding marks too will be lengthy; I trust not. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. Your Lordships will divine that some of those who have spoken I agree with, and some I found less persuasive, but I have welcomed the opportunity to discuss these matters and others with many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness opposite, whose courtesy I always so much appreciate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I very much appreciate that.
I have listened very carefully to all the arguments, not least the compelling concluding remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I was a little puzzled by the position of the noble Baroness opposite because she seemed to say that when the Labour Party told the electorate in 2019 that they would repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, what they actually meant was that they would not repeal it, but they would keep the chance of the very zombie Parliament that the public so overwhelmingly rejected in the 2019 election. I suggest to your Lordships that, notwithstanding some speeches that have been made, the risk of that occurring if these amendments are supported remains high.
I respectfully suggest to all noble Lords that retaining a revised version of the failed 2011 Act, which this amendment would do, in effect, by keeping the Commons veto in a revised form, is a highly problematic suggestion. It would not achieve what it is intended to do; it certainly would not secure clarity. I was on the Constitution Committee a long time ago when the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, became chair, and I say to her how much I admired and respected the work that was done by that committee while she was chair; I am sure I speak for the whole House on that. In her compelling speech, she spoke of the need for some degree of clarity and the need to avoid loopholes. We must guard against repeating one of the fundamental errors of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which, in the words of our manifesto, led to “paralysis”, or, in the words of the Labour manifesto, has “propped up weak governments”—Governments without the authority to govern effectively.
I submit that the first problem is that this is not the simple solution that some noble Lords have implied. In fact, a vote in the other place on Dissolution would be complicated and challenging to effect. To highlight one area of difficulty, what will be the likely consequences for constitutional conventions, including the conventions on confidence? Some of your Lordships will recall that this was a question that very much exercised this House in the debates on the 2011 Act.
The amendment would undoubtedly repeat the mistakes of the 2011 Act: it would undermine the fundamental conventions on confidence—by virtue of which a Government hold office—by divorcing them from practical effect and, even worse, making the consequences of a loss of a confidence vote ambiguous. The amendment is dangerously silent on the status and practice of the conventions associated with confidence. That silence is unclear and ambiguous, and could undoubtedly lead to fractious debate, uncertainty and delay at a time when timely action might be needed. In particular, in the event that a Prime Minister lost a vote on a Motion designated as a matter of confidence, they would not be able to request a Dissolution without the prior approval of the House.
It is unclear, therefore, how the amendment would interact with conventions on confidence in practice. Does it mean that the Prime Minister would be expected to table the Motion provided for in this amendment straight away, or would they be able to try to regain the confidence of the House? Would some other Member of the House be able to table the Motion? What happens after the loss of a vote on confidence? We saw with the 2011 Act, which tried to codify what would happen after the loss of a vote of no confidence, that efforts to partially prescribe how essentially political processes are played out leads only to ambiguity and uncertainty.
With respect, rather than introducing a process that would arguably preclude the Prime Minister reflecting on the view of the House after a defeat on a designated issue, the amendment does not provide a clear and unambiguous process, yet it also serves to restrict the ability to flexibly respond. The amendment is silent on these fundamental points of principle and practical implementation and therefore risks us repeating the mistakes of the 2011 Act. I agree with my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston: lack of clarity is risky.
Your Lordships have suggested that a simple majority is the silver bullet, preventing deadlock and stasis. However, I submit that, with the benefit of history—from not so long ago; we do not have to have grey hair to have lived through the disastrous Parliament of 2017-19—we can see that the real risk of a vote, even a simple majority one, as I will argue shortly, is a repetition of the deadlock and paralysis of the 2017-19 Parliament.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lord, if the Minister is going down the path of history, can he please address the specific point? On three occasions, the Prime Minister in—I agree with him—that dreadful Parliament, obtained a majority for a general election. That is not a theoretical speculation—it is fact.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am coming on to that, as I just said to the House I would. You can look at those circumstances in different ways, I would submit. Perhaps I will deal with that and then go on to the other point.
The Government had effectively lost the confidence of the Commons on the central purpose of its being, which was to deliver the referendum result on a key European policy. As the noble Lord opposite says, they tried to call an election three times, and three times the Commons refused to grant one. Why did the other place refuse to grant one? I cannot remember which noble Lord it was who said in the debate that it was because the leader of the Opposition sat on his hands and decided to prevent an election taking place. The noble Lord said he would not have done, but he did—three times.
The votes for dissolution were 298 on 4 September, 293 on 9 September, and 299 on 28 October. On every occasion they fell short of a majority. The Labour Party cast its vote to secure what it manifestly wished to do, which was to prevent the Prime Minister going to the country. Three times Mr Corbyn was presented—like Caesar on the Lupercal—with the crown of the election that he could have had the following day, on 4 September, 9 September and 28 October, and he declined.
The noble Lord suggests that of course if they had known there would be an election, the Opposition would never have sought to vote against it. By sitting on their hands, the Opposition defied the people and did not have an election.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My noble friend must address the point. The point is that if the requirement were not what the Fixed-term Parliaments Act required but a simple majority on a Motion in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister back in October 2019 would have secured a simple majority and got his election.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there is a conditional in that: a “would”. I believe that people must be presumed to intend the consequences of their own actions, and the consequence of Mr Corbyn’s actions was to thwart a general election three times. The figures I have given to the House are there in the book.
I want to move on because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in the gravamen of the argument—although I think the matters I have covered are a flaw in it—used the argument, which I think was taken up by my noble friend Lady Noakes, that the votes of millions of people should not be overturned by Dissolution. A number of noble Lords have addressed this. By implication, the noble and learned Lord argues, per contra, that the chance to vote for millions of people should be denied by a vote of the House of Commons. It seems to me an extraordinary concept that a House of Commons that does not wish to go should, in his words, prevent or overturn the votes of millions. I respectfully disagree. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, who chaired your Lordships’ Constitution Committee with distinction, put some political practicality into the equation, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. This is very serious. I simply do not accept the argument that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, put forward.
A simple majority vote, for the reasons I have given, would not necessarily prevent deadlock in certain conditions—my noble friend Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury spoke to this—such as when the Government of the day held only a small majority, no majority at all or depended on a small party with a particular regional or country-specific interest. The procedure that is proposed would, in my submission, fail the test of clarity and the absence of loopholes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, put to us. The Joint Committee itself noted on the matter of a vote in the Commons before Parliament was dissolved, that, “The majority”—there were conflicting views, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, put to us—
“considers it a change which would only have a practical effect in a gridlocked Parliament, which could mean denying an election to a Government which was unable to function effectively, and which might therefore be counter to the public interest.”
I agree with the submission of the majority that this would be
“counter to the public interest.”
In short, far from making things simple, the very thing that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said he wished to achieve, it could still lead to stasis.
The most detrimental aspect of a vote in the other place, and potentially allowing that to be used to frustrate an election, is that general elections are sometimes called when the existing Parliament has proven to be unviable. The statutory requirement for a vote in the other place would only compound that problem, and in such a case, as we have discussed or I have submitted, with part of his own party potentially voting against a Prime Minister—circumstances that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, suggested could happen—even a simple majority would be too high.
Past Governments, and potentially future Governments, have often worked within turbulent political and economic contexts, trying to deliver ambitious and significant agendas and sometimes with small majorities. It is in these circumstances, above all, that the flexibility of the system which the two major parties in this country pledged to revive and which we are seeking to revive through this Bill matters most. In these scenarios, a Prime Minister should be able to be decisive and request a Dissolution to try to resolve a parliamentary stalemate or test their mandate to govern.
My noble friend Lord Lansley asked by what authority a Prime Minister might act. I think my noble friend and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern answered that. The Prime Minister, acting as the Sovereign’s principal adviser, is able to request a Dissolution by virtue of an ability to command the confidence of the other place. In the case of a minority Government or a confused House of Commons, the agreement to a Dissolution might be difficult to secure—as it proved three times in 2019. I submit that not many new MPs—some noble Lords have been slightly disrespectful of what might be the motives of people in another place—would rush to face the electorate in a matter of months if given the chance to have a say.
It is by no means certain, as noble Lords have suggested, that past minority Governments would have secured opposition support for an election had this system operated. I agree with the powerful interventions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and my noble friend Lady Noakes on this point. Some noble Lords seem to forget the experience of 2017-19. A vote in the House of Commons might have meant other minority Governments and similar ones having to limp on like that one, unable to deliver their priorities. The revival of the prerogative power to dissolve Parliament is, in our submission, the most effective way for a Government to be permitted to put important questions to the people, resolve stasis and secure the mandate to govern effectively. It is a system of constitutional practice that has worked; I urge noble Lords not to seek to add complexity where previously, before 2011, there was none.
I must address briefly the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. It would go further in the development of a statutory process by making express provision that, when Parliament stands prorogued, a Dissolution cannot be sought. The amendment seeks to set a condition that a Parliament must be “recalled”—or rather summoned—for the purpose of the passage of a Dissolution approval Motion.
Prior to the Dissolution of Parliament, a short Prorogation may be necessary to allow the swift conclusion of business; of course, it should be as short as possible. This has happened on several occasions, most recently in 1992, 1997, 2005 and 2010. In 2010, Parliament was prorogued from Thursday 8 April until Monday 12 April, whereupon Dissolution was proclaimed. Among other things, this enabled the general election to take place on a Thursday, as has been usual practice. Although the concepts of Prorogation and Dissolution may be superficially similar in that they are both prerogative acts, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said, they are distinct. Prorogation is the formal ending of a Session; Dissolution provides an opportunity for the electorate to give their verdict.
I have heard the arguments in favour of a Commons vote on this matter in the circumstance of a Prorogation also but, respectfully, the Government believe that this is undesirable and risks repeating some of the worst aspects of the 2011 Act. In our submission, providing for the requirement that a prorogued Parliament must be summoned serves only to build in additional delay and undermine the ability of the Prime Minister to act decisively. The risk that the noble Lord alluded to in seeking to strengthen the role of the Commons raises that fundamental question: who should be the ultimate judge on the Government’s decision to call an election? As many noble Lords have said, the answer is clear: the electorate. As the Joint Committee said, they are
“the ultimate authority in a democratic system”.
Like my noble friend Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, I simply do not understand the idea of a rogue or outrageous Dissolution because it is the fundamental act of humility by the Executive to place their future in the hands of the electorate, who should be the final arbiter of whether a Prime Minister has called an election legitimately. I acquit the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, of this but I have found it strange to hear noble Lords say that they want to repeal the FTPA but return to some of the worst aspects of it. I think that there is a further complication in what the noble Lord suggested.
I am sure that the House wishes to move on. We will have further opportunities in the debate on the next group to discuss sovereignty and controls on Parliament, but I ought to say in preamble that noble Lords have suggested that a Commons vote increases parliamentary accountability and acts as a check on the Executive. It is not our view that the prerogative system diminishes parliamentary sovereignty and the Executive’s accountability to Parliament. Rather, by reviving the prerogative powers, we are restoring the link between confidence and Dissolution. If a Prime Minister loses the confidence of the elected House, they can either resign, seek a Dissolution or seek to recover the confidence of the House. The other place has the nuclear option of a Motion of no confidence and a plethora of means of holding the Executive to account. It does not require further prescriptive statutory measures to do so effectively.
Notwithstanding the gentle chiding of the noble Lord, Lord Newby—I am grateful to him for taking the time, or wasting it as he seemed to argue, to read the letter that I sent to noble Lords—I ask your Lordships to consider carefully the potential, unknown, long-term consequences of this amendment, which flow out of some of the problems that we have discussed in this debate. A vote in the Commons would disrupt the equilibrium in finely balanced, historical constitutional arrangements and could have an impact on the role of the sovereign. In reviving the prerogative power to dissolve Parliament, the Government have clearly acknowledged that this power is exercised by the sovereign on the request of the Prime Minister, as we discussed in the first group.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I briefly point out that the definition of “Prorogation” that the Minister has just given does not cover the meaning of what the Prime Minister did in 2019. He might perhaps like to reconsider that definition if he wants to argue that the Prime Minister was behaving within the constitution. A lot of this debate has been about the lack of clarity in constitutional conventions at present and the need for greater clarity. I would be very happy to discuss further with him the revision of the Cabinet Manual to set out clearer definitions of what our conventions are, agreed among the parties and consulting with the committees in both Houses, which is what we need. We lack trust in politics at present and the public has a low opinion of politics and politicians. That is part of the reason why, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, we need to put conventions down on paper. I hope that we will come back to the Cabinet Manual later.
I say rapidly to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that we are a parliamentary democracy, and one of the planks on which the 2016 referendum was fought was to restore parliamentary sovereignty. When Parliament began afterwards to divide up into factions within both the major parties—which, after all, was the cause of our difficulties between 2017 and 2019—the Government moved towards an idea of popular sovereignty. If we were to move towards a system of popular sovereignty, as she suggests, we would be moving towards the Swiss model. We would have a much more local democracy, with local as well as national referenda and a Government who were much less able to control anything much from the centre; Switzerland does not have much of a foreign policy as a result. That is a popular democracy. It would be a very different model from our constitutional democracy based on checks and balances between judiciary, Parliament and Executive.
What we risk having is a populist democracy with highly centralised government and a leader with a good deal of financial support behind him—occasionally her, but almost always him—who says that he speaks for the public without actually asking them what they say, who does his best to denigrate any sort of critical or independent media and who thus undermines the whole idea of a constitutional democracy. We have seen that happen in a number of countries in recent years and we do not want it to happen here. That is why we need greater clarity in our constitutional conventions, which is part of what we are concerned with in this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Judge
“(1A) The powers referred to in subsection (1) must not be exercised unless the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (1B).(1B) The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (1A) is “that this present Parliament will be dissolved.””
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, it is rather fun to be clothed in the costume of a revolutionary who is about to tear down the constitution. I do not think anyone has ever thought of me in those terms, and my family will be absolutely fascinated by it.
I have found this an interesting debate on all sides. It is perfectly obvious that I shall have to read the debate, which I shall. It is also perfectly clear that there is nothing further that I can say in private meetings, in the Chamber or anywhere else that will enable me to persuade the Minister to change his mind or his position.
I remind noble Lords that we are simply asking that the House of Commons should have a chance to look again at the proposal before us so that it can make up its mind. Its Members had a debate, but when you read it you see that—this sounds discourteous, and I suppose in a way it is—the issue was hardly addressed. All that I am asking in this amendment is that they should be given a chance to think about it. I would be perfectly happy for them to reject it; that would be their decision. For today’s purposes, I shall withdraw the amendment, but I shall reflect on what should happen at the next stage.
Lord Norton of Louth
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the ouster provision in clause 3 will not apply to the purported exercise of the powers to dissolve Parliament contained in clause 2.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I shall also speak to my other two amendments in this group. The amendments would ensure that the ouster provisions in the clause did not apply to the purported exercise of the powers to dissolve Parliament contained in Clause 2. There are two principal arguments that I wish to develop in support of the amendments. The first is that they are necessary to give effect to the Government’s intention that the Bill restore the status quo ante. The second is that including the “purported” exercise of powers within the clause is objectionable in principle.
The purpose of the Bill is to restore the position to what it was before the 2011 Act was enacted. As paragraph 23 of the Explanatory Notes concedes, the purpose of Clause 3(c) is
“to address the distinction drawn by the Supreme Court … as regards the court’s role in reviewing the scope of a prerogative power, as opposed to its exercise.”
As the Law Society of Scotland pointed out in its helpful briefing note, that takes us further than the pre-2011 status quo ante. It considers that extending the clause to the purported exercise of the Clause 2 powers, or a purported decision in relation to those powers, may go beyond the bounds of the previous law as expressed in the 1985 case of Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service. As the note goes on to say:
“We take the view that the inclusion of ‘purported’ appears to be designed to address the decision in R (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and others … where the absence of the word ‘purported” was treated as significant by some of the judges.”
Either the Bill restores the status quo ante or it does not. If the Government are to be consistent and achieve the situation as it existed prior to September 2011, the references to the “purported exercise” and “purported decision” of powers under Clause 2 need to be removed from the Bill.
The second and fundamental objection is one of principle. The use of “purported” means that the exercise might be beyond the power vested in Ministers. I am not in favour of Ministers having the capacity without it being open to challenge in the courts. The Minister in the Commons, Chloe Smith, said that the clause provided
“an opportunity to Parliament to be absolutely clear on whether it thinks that such things should be outside the jurisdiction of the courts.”
She went on to say that
“the check on the exercise of power is for the electorate to decide on rather than the courts.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/9/21; col. 723.]
“Purported” decisions might conflict with the rule of law. The Minister in the other place was effectively saying that it was not for the courts to determine whether Ministers were acting beyond their powers. I do not think that the letter from my noble friend Lord True really engaged with that point.
It is important to stress that the clause should not be viewed as an attempt to restrict the courts from encroaching on the position of Parliament. That might be how Ministers wish to convey it, but the senior courts have been exercised by the use of powers by Ministers, not by Parliament. Indeed, the most recent high-profile cases that appear to have motivated the Government to use this wording were ones in which the courts sought to protect, not undermine, the position of Parliament in relation to the Executive. In this clause, the Government seek to confer on Ministers wide-ranging powers in a way that I consider dangerous.
The wording of the clause might also be counterproductive. There is no evidence that the courts would want to encroach on the exercise of the prerogative in dissolving Parliament and calling an election.
With these amendments, we are also discussing whether Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill. My contention is that if there is an ouster clause, it needs to be true to the purpose of the Bill, which is to restore the position to what it was before 2011, and that it should omit provisions—in this case reference to “purported exercise” and “purported decision”—that are constitutionally objectionable. If the Government persist in wishing to retain such wording, that serves to reinforce the case for removing the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and to join the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, in seeking to remove Clause 3 from the Bill. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said in both respects. He dealt with the point that the provisions he seeks to remove from the Bill are unnecessary and objectionable in principle. I will say a few words in support of what he said.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Norton, I cannot help feeling that references to “purported exercise” and what we see in Clause 3(c) are a reaction against, or motivated by, as the noble Lord said, the decision of the Supreme Court in Miller II, although that case was about Prorogation, not Dissolution. There is a very clear distinction between the two, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said at an earlier stage in our debates. It is also very important to bear in mind that the court in Miller made it absolutely clear that it saw its function as being to serve the interests of Parliament against the Executive. It sought to ensure that the Government did not use the power of Prorogation to prevent Parliament carrying out its proper functions, including holding the Executive to account.
We have here a remarkable paradox. On the one hand, the court saw itself as under a duty to preserve parliamentary democracy against actions taken by the Executive. On the other hand, Parliament is being used here by the Executive to deprive the court of that power. I stress that because ouster clauses may seem to be a matter of concern only to lawyers, but that is not so in this context: their use here should be a matter of concern to all of us in this House who value the part that Parliament plays in our democracy.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Committee has shown in the debate on this Bill so far that there is common ground that this Bill should provide clarity. The use of “purported” in Clause 3 seems to be a deliberate choice by the Government and the parliamentary draftsmen. It is not a word used much in everyday speech but is found in other Acts of Parliament. It is also used in judgments when an act has taken place or a decision has been taken, but a court has concluded after the event that the decision or act has no legal effect. Any well-informed draftsman in this context would have had well in mind the decision in the Anisminic case.
In Miller II, as it is generally referred to—the prorogation case—the Supreme Court concluded that despite the fact that the Prime Minister had gone through all the appropriate formalities to prorogue Parliament and Parliament had been, as a matter of fact, prorogued, the prorogation, or purported prorogation, was unlawful and was thus deemed not to have happened as a matter of law, with the result that Parliament was reassembled.
The purpose of Clause 3 is plainly to render the exercise of the power to dissolve Parliament non-justiciable. The first question is whether, as a matter of construction, it has that effect, and the second is whether such an ouster clause should be in the Bill at all. That is an issue in the stand part amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Butler. If, for the sake of argument, the House were to conclude that an ouster clause was appropriate, why not include “purported” in the ouster clause? In its absence, a court could conclude that notwithstanding the apparent or purported Dissolution, because of the unlawfulness of the Dissolution—and the courts have shown considerable ingenuity on occasions in finding unlawfulness—the Dissolution never, as a matter of law, occurred. It would follow that Parliament would then be reassembled, campaigning might be halted, the date of an election vacated, with all the attendant chaos that would ensure, and it is even possible that the result of an election could be set aside. That seems to me to be a highly undesirable state of affairs, for two principal reasons: first, the uncertainly; and, secondly, the insertion of the courts into the political process.
I entirely appreciate the distinction between Prorogation and Dissolution, but before Miller 2 most lawyers would have considered that Prorogation was non-justiciable. I dare say that the advice was given by the Attorney-General or the Government Legal Department that when Mrs Miller and others brought their judicial review it was non-justiciable. That is not such an unreasonable point of view, given the unanimous decision of the Divisional Court, a court consisting of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division. That court concluded that, without in any way expressing approval of the decision of the Prime Minister, it was a matter of politics, not law. In other words, the power was non-justiciable.
Why did the Supreme Court disagree with the reasoning of the Divisional Court? Unfortunately, we do not know, because it made no mention of the decision of the lower court. This departure from the normal engagement with the reasoning of the lower court could certainly be regarded as something of a discourtesy, to put it mildly.
There are differing views as to whether the Supreme Court in Miller 2 came to the right conclusion. The Government’s view may well have been a factor in the setting up of the independent review of administrative law, which I had the privilege of chairing. I do not purport to speak on behalf of the panel today, but I can point out to the House that we concluded that the decision might be regarded as something of a one-off and should not of itself lead to any fundamental changes in the scope of judicial review. The combination of a minority Government, no agreement in government on the right approach to Brexit, and the rigidity of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, with its requirement of a super-majority, created something of a perfect storm.
On the one hand, the case was a magnificent demonstration of the checks and balances in our constitution working well, even if you do not agree with the conclusion. As it happens, I do not agree with it, but other views are available. I do not favour the decision because of the involvement of judges in a political matter. In conversation with constitutional experts in the United States, I have encountered considerable surprise at the decision. An equivalent challenge in the United States would fall foul of the political questions doctrine, and the claimants would not be able to establish that they had standing to bring such a challenge. In this jurisdiction, points on standing are rarely taken. We pointed this out in the IRAL and suggested that they should be taken more often, even by the court of its own motion, since it is a jurisdictional matter.
In his response to the IRAL report, the then Lord Chancellor, Sir Robert Buckland, as he now is, said that he was anxious to protect judges from politics. I think he had a point. Unlike in the US, our judges have, for the most part, skilfully avoided involvement in political matters. As a result, and in sharp distinction to their counterparts in the United States, our judges are not well known to the general public and their views are not a matter of general public interest, in the non-technical sense, and long may that continue.
This Bill would protect judges from political controversy by reason of the terms of Clause 3. I think a number of judges would be perfectly happy with that outcome, but even if they were not there would be an acceptance that Parliament is entitled to legislate to exclude the courts from considering the legality of the power to dissolve Parliament. The IRAL concluded that it was constitutionally open to Parliament to pass an ouster clause of this sort, and unless you reject the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, I do not believe that this is in any way controversial.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I shall disagree with the noble Lord who has just spoken by opposing the inclusion of Clause 3 in the Bill, but first I thank the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Wolfson, for extending to me the courtesy of a virtual discussion on this. They failed to persuade me, but I appreciated the courtesy.
Last week, the Minister circulated a letter to your Lordships addressing the issues arising from the Bill. In it, he said:
“Clause 3: Restates the long standing position that the exercise of prerogative power”
in relation to the Dissolution and calling of Parliament “is non-justiciable”, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has just said something similar. I have been around a long time, but I am not aware of any such long-standing position. There is the statement of Lord Roskill, but it did not bear directly on this. It is not surprising that this position has not been conclusively established, because no challenge to the use of the prerogative power has ever been made. Nor do I think it likely that it ever would be. If it was, I find it hard to imagine the circumstances in which a court would uphold such a challenge. So, in practice, I regard this clause as unnecessary, and dangerous.
Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that a Government misused this prerogative power by asking the sovereign to dissolve Parliament in order to prevent Parliament causing the Government some inconvenience or in an attempt to overturn the result of a recent election. What safeguard would there be against such a misuse of power in the absence of the courts? The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition was absolutely right. She said that there were three possibilities. There is Parliament—the House of Commons—which we debated in the last group of amendments, there are the courts or there is the sovereign. Those are the only three possibilities. Again, I quote the Minister’s letter:
“The sovereign retains the power to refuse an improper dissolution and, in doing so, acts as a constitutional backstop in this context.”
Is this a position in which we would wish to place the sovereign? It would do precisely what we are all agreed we should not do: namely, to require the sovereign to intervene in what are likely to be, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, the most highly charged political circumstances. Therefore, if anyone is to prevent the Government misusing the power, and the Government are determined to oppose the House of Commons being given a vote, I submit that it should be the courts rather than the sovereign.
Of course, if the high court of Parliament—the House of Commons—has authorised the use of the power, that would put it out of the reach of the courts. That is the virtue of the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, but the Government are opposed to that. There are dangers in leaving it to the House of Commons, which were described at length in the last debate, so it is either the courts or the sovereign. I submit that in those circumstances, it has to be the courts.
There is a more fundamental objection to Clause 3. These are the words of the clause:
“A court or tribunal may not question—
(a) the exercise or purported exercise of the powers referred to in section 2,
(b) any decision or purported decision relating to those powers, or
(c) the limits or extent of those powers.”
I find those words chilling. They amount to saying, “We will take these powers, but we will not allow any interference by the judicial system in the way we exercise them.” That is the language of an authoritarian —some might even say totalitarian—Government.
It is because the present Government have shown signs of seeking to override any challenge to the use of their powers that this ouster clause is such a dangerous precedent, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hope has said. I suggest that this House should stand against that precedent. I shall not seek the opinion of the Committee today on excluding Clause 3 from the Bill, but I reserve the right to move an amendment on Report to remove it.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, with a Supreme Court judge, the chairman of the most recent inquiry into the workings of judicial review—he did an extremely good piece of work on that—and a former Cabinet Secretary presenting views that differ in more than nuanced ways, the House will have to resolve this issue. Those of us who are deeply concerned about this clause cannot be accused of wanting to drag the judges into decisions about whether elections are being held. In my case, and in some of the other cases, we have offered two mechanisms that clearly make that very unlikely.
One is that the courts would be very unlikely to question or interfere in any way with the personal prerogative power, which we all agreed earlier is the nature of, if not the wording of the Bill, then of the re-establishment of the status quo ante. The second is that a significant number of us argued that a vote in the House of Commons is a desirable process. Were it there—were it a condition—it would entirely obviate any fear that the courts would become involved, because the courts would recognise the Bill of Rights’ prohibition on questioning the decision made in Parliament. We are not people seeking to drag the judges into this process.
The Government’s belief that they have to build a bulwark of some kind against judges becoming involved, all based on a particular recent experience that was about not Dissolution but Prorogation, has, I think, drawn them into doing something that, if we do it, we will come to regret very much in years to come. The phraseology of the clause should remind us of that: it is the
“purported exercise of the powers”
or the “purported decision”. What does that take us to? It takes us to the point where the Government are trying to ensure that the courts do not question whether the Prime Minister had the power to act in that way, or, if he had the power, that he is acting in ways covered by the legislation. I find it very hard to conceive of a case that could be made, if the processes of this legislation are followed, in which that could reasonably be advanced in front of or taken seriously by any court. What I see is an ouster clause that we will not see the last of and that we will see again in other legislation. Then it will be said that it is a perfectly acceptable ouster clause, as Parliament allowed it in legislation that repealed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act; that it is just a straightforward way of making it clear that this is an area in which we do not want the courts involved.
The power of judicial review, which was carefully analysed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the team he led, is an essential way in which the citizen is protected from the abuse of power by the Executive. There are many kinds of Executive, not just the national Government we are thinking of today; local authorities and private sector organisations have powers of various kinds. If they act beyond those powers, the courts are the proper place to challenge that misuse of power. Once we give currency to the idea that a Minister can say in relation to a purported action or purported decision that they have decided they have the power to do this and may not be challenged, that is a reversal of the entire system of judicial review.
The process described in Clause 3 will never be engaged in relation to what we are talking about—the calling of a general election. There are so many barriers against it—not least, of course, the desire of the judges not to get into that political process at all—but once we have got this on to the statute book, we will not have seen the last of it. I think we have created a highly dangerous model for ouster clauses. I am disappointed, in a way: I think the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, resisted pressures to come up with foolish decisions in his review, and I would welcome him being on my side on the issue, which is about the longer-term importance of judicial review for the purpose for which it was intended. One can raise questions about some ways in which it has been used in the past. One can raise questions about whether there are some limitations, such as the Cart issues raised by the review by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. It is vital in the protection of our citizens and I see it threatened by the existence of this clause.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, my core concern regarding this group of amendments is for the future generation of judges—not just in the Supreme Court, but judges who, I suggest, must inevitably be troubled at first instance and so forth before things get to the Supreme Court—if there is there is the slightest glimmer of a prospect of anybody legally challenging any decision with regard to Dissolution. I find myself in total agreement with all that my noble friend Lord Faulks said and the legal analysis here. The courts have striven mightily to remove any possibility of ouster clauses having effect. With that, in most contexts, I totally agree, but this is in the context of Dissolution and of trying, with the utmost clarity, to return as whence we were, where there was no possibility of the courts entertaining a challenge.
To my mind, the courts would be grossly embarrassed and, of course, singularly unlikely to intervene. The noble Lord, Lord Beith is absolutely right: it is the last thing they would want to do because it would be so embarrassing and destructive of the current constitutional position of judges to allow themselves to be drawn into this field. However, the temptation for others to try to involve them must be removed. I suggest that this clause, as is, tries to dot every I and cross every T.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I will speak only on Clause 3 stand part and not on the more detailed amendments, because I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will reply in his careful way about how the wording was arrived at and what it is intended to do, as he did very carefully at Second Reading.
One does not have to be an expert on the constitution, which I am not, to know that judges should not interfere in politics, and decisions on calling elections are about as political as decisions ever get. I believe the Government are right to try to draft this Bill in such a way that the courts cannot interfere in that very political decision, and that is why I support Clause 3 standing part of the Bill.
The fact that the Government feel it necessary to include Clause 3 and draft it in such a complex way speaks volumes about how the judiciary has found many ways of getting involved in areas that would have seemed unthinkable only a few years ago, ones of which we would have assumed the courts would steer clear. The clause is necessary only because of the direction of travel taken by the courts in the way they have interpreted the areas they get involved in. I, for one, believe that we need no more surprises like the Miller judgments.
Clause 3 is confined to the specific and narrow issue of whether the prerogative power to dissolve Parliament is justiciable. I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which the involvement of the courts could ever be justified, and those who oppose Clause 3 have said that they cannot think of any either. Even the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, who demonstrated the fertility of his imagination in the debate on an earlier group of amendments, could not come up with an example. We are legislating against shadows, against figments of the imagination.
The issue is about only the steps taken to allow a general election to be called. It is a very political decision. We cannot conceive of the courts ever getting involved in delaying an election, halting an election or even, as my noble friend Lord Faulks suggested, nullifying the result of a general election. It just seems too ludicrous a concept even to contemplate. However, we need it to be clear beyond peradventure in the law, and without this clause it may not be.
We need to get this into perspective. Clause 3 does not diminish the role of the courts in the constitution; it is about this one narrow area that before, when we simply rested on the prerogative, no one thought the courts could ever get involved in, but because of other developments in the law we now feel it necessary to be quite explicit about it.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
The noble Baroness and I agree that the circumstances in which this situation arises are unthinkable, so why should we have the dangerous precedent of this ouster clause in the Bill?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
We have it because it is just possible that the courts could find a way in. We have seen them getting involved in areas that we never thought they would get involved in before. That is a fact of the way the judiciary has moved in recent years, and it is why the clause is there.
I do not accept that the clause sets a dangerous precedent. It is about this one very narrow issue. It is not about an ouster clause that would be put in every statute that came before Parliament. Of course, Parliament must decide at the end of the day how it wants to frame its laws. It has the right to do that, and the courts can then interpret those laws, but I do not believe that this will be seen as a precedent for a more general use of ouster clauses. If it is, I am fairly sure that Parliament would not accept them. We should see this clause in the narrow concept in which it is drafted and not try to extend it beyond that.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, if we are talking about our tried and tested constitution, we should remember that in the 17th century it was Chief Justice Coke and his defence of the rule of law against the extent of the royal prerogative which led to the development of some of the ideas of constitutional democracy at least as much as Parliament. The rule of law is an essential part of the way we work.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that we all know that this clause is in the Bill because of the judgment on Prorogation in 2019. I was interested to hear that the Minister’s definition of Prorogation did not in any sense suggest that that use of the power came within an accepted definition. Perhaps he will change his definition next time he comes.
The Minister has said that the importance of the Bill is to restore the status quo, but this ouster clause is not the restoration of the status quo. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that it opens a window to its use on other occasions, which would be highly undesirable. It is much more radical than Clause 2 in changing our customs and practices. If we want to maintain the status quo while changing it a little—
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord says that the clause does not restore the status quo. Does it follow that, in his view, the power to dissolve would have been justiciable at common law by virtue of the conventions?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I find it hard to imagine a situation in which the power of Dissolution would be used in the way that the power of Prorogation was used in 2019, so I do not think it likely that the case would arise. That is my instant opinion.
The radical dimension of this is that it disturbs the balance between the judiciary and the rule of law, and Parliament and the checks that Parliament has on executive power and the Government. The conclusion of The Independent Review of Administrative Law says, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, will remember:
“The Panel consider that the independence of our judiciary and the high reputation in which it is held internationally should cause the government to think long and hard before seeking to curtail its powers … It is inevitable that the relationship between the judiciary, the executive and Parliament will from time to time give rise to tensions … a degree of conflict shows that the checks and balances in our constitution are working well.”
I strongly agree with those sentiments. It is part of the proper process of constitutional democracy that each of those elements of our constitution should have a degree of tension with each other and hold each other in balance.
That is why I am in favour of amending this Bill to provide the simpler process of powers of Dissolution that Clause 2 provides—thus making Clause 3 unnecessary —and supplementing the desire for clarity of conventions by revising the Cabinet Manual to have a more fluent definition of Dissolution principles. If we do all three of those, we will substantially improve the constitutional value of this Bill.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to think that the Minister will find this argument conclusive. If he had accepted the amendment on Clause 2 that so many noble Lords thought was valuable—to have parliamentary resolution for a general election—we would not have needed this debate on the ouster clause and could have got home much earlier. But he has rejected it and that brings us to the debate about the ouster clause itself.
In normal circumstances, when eminent lawyers pronounce on issues of law and legality, those of us who are not lawyers intervene with some trepidation. I am relaxed on this issue, however, because the ghost in the room is the debate on Prorogation, not Dissolution, and that it went to the Supreme Court. We all know the debates surrounding that and those of us who are not lawyers are emboldened by the defence that the Divisional Court thought 100% in one direction and the Supreme Court thought 100% in the other. Whichever argument you pick, you will have a few top lawyers on your side.
In my view, that whole episode relates to that dreadful Parliament I keep referring to between 2017 and 2019. All that debate, which went to the Supreme Court, derived from the background of a dysfunctional Parliament—a bad case, if you like. So much of the debate we are having now is with that and the judgments that were made hanging over us. The list of dysfunctionalities of that Parliament knows no bounds. I mention one obvious point: there was a Speaker who, on the biggest debate of the day—the referendum result and its consequences—was highly partisan on one side of the argument. In those circumstances, all sorts of other undesirable things follow.
I, for one, very much regret that the Supreme Court decided to get involved in politics at the highest level. I know there are all sorts of disclaimers that it was not doing that, but that is precisely what happened. It is difficult to imagine a more dramatic, higher-profile political issue than that of leaving or not leaving the EU, and the Supreme Court came down decisively on one side of the argument, in practical terms. As soon as the courts are involved in these kinds of highly charged political areas, we are in trouble.
I can certainly see the need for this ouster clause, but I regret the need for it because we should have dealt with this in the simple way of a parliamentary majority. We keep hearing about the three pillars of the constitution: the judiciary, the Executive and the legislature. In my book, and perhaps I am biased, one of those is greater than the other two—a first among equals—and that is Parliament, which is answerable to the public in a way the other two are not.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I have been listening to this debate and it has been extremely interesting. I will not detain the House because it is late, but what I find interesting—I am talking more generally about Clause 3, although I fully accept some of the points made about the wording and mission creep—is that this Government are claiming that the Bill simply restores the status quo ante. In fact, it is rather more difficult to restore the status quo ante than you might think.
In my view, the reason why Clause 3 is in the Bill is the Miller cases. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and I disagree on what you might call the direction of travel—we can have a conversation about that some other time—but the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim that they are restoring the status quo ante and, at the same time, make the argument for Clause 3. When the Minister replies, it would be helpful if he at least acknowledged that the Bill does more than restore the status quo ante. I will leave it there, in view of the late hour.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, in this debate I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with almost every speaker—agreeing with something they said and disagreeing with something they said.
I start with the point made by my noble friend Lord Stansgate. If the Bill is merely returning to the status quo ante, as was said, I am not quite clear why we need a clause such as Clause 3. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who said that it seems inconceivable to him that the courts would insert themselves into a decision about a general election. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said, the practical consequences of doing so are quite disastrous and it is hard to contemplate the impact that would have on a democratic decision to have a general election.
The elephant in the room that has been alluded to is that everybody, whatever side of the argument they are on, is scarred by the unlawful Prorogation. I appreciate that this is about Dissolution, which is very different to Prorogation, but because of the unlawful Prorogation the Government are concerned that the courts may insert themselves into this decision-making. So, even though they are telling us that it returns us to where we were prior to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, they still feel the need for belt and braces. Yet there is also the view that it is a step too far and would never be needed anyway.
As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, pointed out, a neater way of avoiding the courts involving themselves in a decision about a general election, and avoiding bringing the monarch into a controversial political decision—the noble Lord, Lord Butler, commented on this—is for the House of Commons to have a vote. If the Government are concerned that, because of the way the legislation is drafted without Clause 3, there would be a danger of the courts intervening—in my view, there is not a role for the courts to intervene, but the Government are concerned that there may be—they have this clause. That is the chilling effect that people are concerned about.
This highlights the fact that the Government are not confident that their own legislation does reset. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which probably surprises her as much as it surprises me, that it is legislation that tries to deal with shadows, because it is something we all hope will not happen. We have to look at this, and we need some more explanation from the Government as to why they feel it is necessary. It is hard to understand how the courts could and would insert themselves into a decision on a general election. I come back to the amendments in group two, particularly Amendment 3, being a better way to deal with this.
Could the noble Lord also address two things when he replies? Although there are the normal checks and balances of conventions, Parliament and parliamentary behaviour, one of our concerns, which comes back, sideways, to the unlawful Prorogation, is that we have a Prime Minister at the moment who does not really stick to the normal conventions of parliamentary behaviour that we expect. The noble Lord and I have had numerous discussions on this across the Dispatch Box—his face shows no emotion at the moment; I do not want to embarrass him. For example, I think that Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister to have ignored findings on the Ministerial Code, and the first to reject the advice of the House of Lords Appointments Commission and do what he wanted to do. In the same way as the 2017-19 Parliament, which my noble friend referred to as the dysfunctional Parliament, and the unlawful Prorogation influenced our decision, we are affected by the Prime Minister’s behaviour when we look at this. It is the same consideration.
Something is still needed to restore checks and balances. I am not convinced that it is this clause, but I would like to hear some more from the Minister, because most of us would be appalled that the courts would be involved in parliamentary sovereignty, for both practical and political reasons.
Could I get the noble Lord to address one final thing when he responds? I am still not clear about the word “purported”. I looked again at the Joint Committee’s report. Various lawyers, such as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, and Lord Sumption also commented that, basically, if the Government did something that was outwith their powers, we could do anything about it. If that is the intention behind clause, that is quite damaging. I would find it helpful if the noble Lord could explain why the word “purported” is in there and why it needs to be. I genuinely do not understand why it should be. That seems more dangerous than the clause itself.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will certainly seek to do so. I do not wish to pre-empt the Committee in any way. We obviously have other groups to come to. I anticipate that the debates on those will not be quite so lengthy but, given the importance of this amendment, I hope noble Lords will be forbearing if I address it in some detail to place these matters on the record, mindful as we all should be that arguments put at length in Committee should not be repeated at length on Report.
I took it from what the noble Baroness opposite said that the Labour Party agrees with us that the courts should not come anywhere near this. Other people have obviously argued otherwise. She came out with that other elephant in the room, which was glinting quietly in the mists behind the argument from the noble Lord, Lord Butler. She criticises my right honourable friend Minister. The elements are mixed in my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. He has apologised for actions, and things are subject to inquiries. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is subject to the most unprecedented campaign of personal vilification that I have been aware of in modern politics in my lifetime. Notwithstanding that, I do not think that that justifies ad hominem legislation of any sort. This point was addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, based his argument on a claim that the Government sought “totalitarian” powers, with an advised plural. This matter concerns one process, as has been pointed out by several people who have spoken, and one process alone: the Dissolution of Parliament and the precipitation of a general election. I find nothing remotely totalitarian in a Government asking the public to be the Government’s judge.
Dissolution remains one of the most fundamental non-justiciable prerogative powers. Nobody has argued that it should be justiciable; some people said, “We do not need to have an ouster clause because it is obviously not”, et cetera. Dissolution is unique for two reasons. First, the constraints on it are democratic; the judgment on a Prime Minister’s decision to call an election is the electorate. There is no vacuum of accountability, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said. What greater judgment and punishment can be meted out if a Prime Minister abuses that power than the loss of power, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, told us? It is the ultimate political reprimand. Secondly, the security of the process of calling an election, and the election itself, underpins the integrity and health of our democracy. It is critical that exercise of the Dissolution prerogative, including the preliminary steps leading to the exercise of the power, are not made insecure. This prerogative power is inherently political in nature and it is not suitable for review by the courts. There is no legal standard that the courts can usefully apply to review the preliminary steps and the Dissolution decision itself.
This has been the view of the courts, as we have heard. Lord Roskill, in the landmark GCHQ case in 1985, said the courts’ right of challenge must
“depend upon the subject matter of the prerogative power which is exercised”.
He agreed that the Dissolution of Parliament was not
“susceptible to judicial review because”
its
“nature and subject matter is such as not to be amenable to the judicial process.”
Furthermore, as Lord Justice Taylor noted in Everett:
“At the top of the scale of executive functions under the prerogative are matters of high policy, of which examples were given by their Lordships; making treaties, making war, dissolving Parliament, mobilising the Armed Forces. Clearly those matters, and no doubt a number of others, are not justiciable.”
However, despite these clear directions from some of the most esteemed judicial authorities, in our judgment the direction of travel in the case law makes a clear and explicit statement of non-justiciability necessary.
As the Independent Review of Administrative Law noted—and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Faulks for his role in that and for his reasoned and intelligent approach in leading that review,
“the past 40 years or so have seen a steady retreat within the law on judicial review away from the view that exercises of certain public powers are by their very nature non-justiciable in favour of the view that the exercises of those powers are either justiciable or reviewable on some grounds but not others.”
It is this reality that makes it necessary to include this clause leaving no room for doubt. The clause has been carefully drafted, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, divined, respecting the message from the courts that only, in the words of Lord Justice Laws, with
“the most clear and explicit words”
can Parliament exclude their jurisdiction. I am afraid, therefore, that when noble Lords suggest that reviving the prerogative power would suffice—this touches on the point raised by the noble Viscount—as the courts would be excluded from reviewing a prerogative power, that does not take into account the direction of travel in the case law and would be to ignore the clear message of the courts themselves. That was the gravamen of the impressive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, with which, in substance, I agreed, and also the submission of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown.
Noble Lords raised concerns with the specific wording of the clause, in particular the words “purported”, “limit” and “extent”, which I will address in detail. First, I emphasise that this clause says what is necessary and no more. Each of its words is necessary, in our judgment, to preserve the non-justiciability of the prerogative of Dissolution. Drafting this clause has been a technical challenge for counsel, and it has required a response to a range of case law. The purpose of the clause is to be as clear as possible about the “no-go” sign around the Dissolution and calling of Parliament, to preserve the sphere of political decision-making that provides the context for the exercise of the prerogative power of Dissolution and the preliminary steps leading to the exercise of that power. The Independent Review of Administrative Law, which had the benefit of seeing the Government’s clause, did not find it disproportionate but rather agreed that it can be regarded as a “codifying clause” which
“simply restates the position that everyone understood obtained before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was passed”.
I can tell the noble Viscount that it was the view of the Independent Review of Administrative Law that the clause restates the position.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, and I am grateful for the detail that he is going into. I am not a lawyer, but I am not the only person in your Lordships’ House tonight who is not. Can the Minister say, in lay man’s language, what he understands a “purported decision” to be? Can he give an example?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords know, I am a lay man. I have read out the legal advice that I have been given that it should not fall to the courts to assess by reference to whether relevant considerations have been taken into account or irrelevant ones have been discounted. I said that earlier in my speech. I will write to the noble Baroness if the words that I have put before Parliament are not sufficient, but they are the words that I have on advice.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I suspect that those words are sufficient for lawyers, but I think the Minister’s understanding of this might be as great as mine at the moment, so I will perhaps take advice between now and Report so that I fully understand the implications of what he saying—because I do not think he is able to give me further detail either.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I seek to put into the record the points put to me by those who argue and maintain that this is necessary.
I will further address the specific question of bad faith that was raised. This touches on another area around “purported”. Bad faith was mentioned by Lord Reid in Anisminic as one of the ways in which a decision may be treated as a nullity. Case law suggests that, if an exercise of power by a public body is taken in bad faith, it is unlawful and will be quashed by the court. A decision is taken in bad faith if it is taken dishonestly or maliciously, although the courts have also equated bad faith with any deliberate improper purpose. Therein lies the challenge. Again, there is no suitable standard by which a court can judge what an “improper purpose” is. By what standards can the courts assess the legitimate or illegitimate purpose—
Lord Beith (LD)
I want to clarify something. Clearly, one reason to include the word “purported” is to deal with the annulling of decisions that have begun to be put into effect. But the Minister referred earlier to the importance of protecting the political space for the particular decision involved in this legislation: the calling of an election. Is it his understanding that this is quite unlike any other exercise of executive power? If it is not, I shall be even more worried because it would bring about situations in which it is generally publicly accepted that the courts were right to annul, for example, a bad faith decision or a decision that has taken none of the processes that should go with it.
Lord True (Con)
I heard what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said and I was going to, and will, come on to this point. I am trying to put a considered position on the record for the benefit of the House between Committee and Report.
By what standards would a court assess the legitimate or illegitimate purpose, or for that matter the impropriety or propriety, of a Dissolution decision by a Prime Minister? Is a Government calling a snap election because that may be to their advantage in some way an improper purpose? Where is the line to be drawn? Ultimately, these are matters that political actors and the electorate, not, I respectfully suggest, judges and lawyers, are best placed to opine on.
Therefore, although bad faith is suitable in the context of behaviour seen as, for example, commercially unacceptable or a deliberate improper exercise of an ordinary discretion by a public authority, it is not a term that is apt in the context of the Dissolution and calling of Parliament. This is something that is inherently political or, in the words of Lord Justice Taylor, a matter of “high policy”. Dissolution is simply not amenable to these legal tests.
I turn to the second part—a further amendment to delete “limits or extent” from the clause. Again, I am grateful to my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for meeting me prior to Committee to explain their thinking. I hope that what I am about to say reassures your Lordships’ Committee of the necessity and proportionality of Clause 3(c).
As with the inclusion of “purported”, the words “limits” and “extent” are also a necessary response to case law. Clause 3 is drafted in response to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Miller II; that is clear. By reference to certain constitutional principles, the Supreme Court established a legal limit on the power to prorogue Parliament and concluded that it had been exceeded. The point we want to make is that by framing the issue in Miller II as being about the limits of the power to prorogue Parliament, the court was able to put the arguments about non-justiciability to one side.
In analysing the importance of Miller II, the Independent Review of Administrative Law observed that
“it creates the potential for the courts to circumvent the ‘no-go’ signs currently mounted around the exercise of prerogative powers in relation to ‘matters of high policy ... [such as] … dissolving Parliament”.
Therefore, Clause 3(c) seeks to make it clear that in the context of the Dissolution and calling of Parliament, the “no-go” signs should not be circumvented in this way.
My second point is about what standards or limits a court may seek to impose. In Miller II, the Supreme Court considered that two principles of constitutional law were relevant in establishing the relevant limit on the power to prorogue; namely, parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary accountability. The Prorogation of Parliament is of course different from the Dissolution and calling of Parliament, as we have heard more than once tonight. In particular, the latter enables the electorate to deliver their verdict on the incumbent Government.
However, one might conclude that a court could look to impose a limit on the revived prerogative powers to dissolve and call Parliament, analogous to the limit imposed on the power to prorogue Parliament in Miller II, and in effect require in law a Government, of whatever persuasion and under whatever lead, to have a reasonable justification for calling an election in certain circumstances.
To paraphrase the independent review, in the case of Dissolution, deleting the words “limits” and “extent” would allow the courts to impose
“various conditions on when such a power can be said to have been validly exercised”,
and then declare
“that the power has not been exercised at all if those conditions are not observed.”
The Government consider that this would be an entirely inappropriate limit on the revived prerogative powers.
As I have argued, the Dissolution and calling of Parliament are inherently political decisions that are entirely unsuitable for review by the courts. More specifically, with relevance to Clause 3(c), we do not believe that it is appropriate for the courts to impose legal limits of this sort on when a Parliament may be dissolved and a general election called.
In reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, we contend that this clause is not contrary to the rule of law. The Government agree with the independent review, which said:
“It is … for Parliament to decide what the law … should be, and it is for the courts to interpret what Parliament has said.”
The majority of the Joint Committee also concluded that it is
“not inherently incompatible with the rule of law”
for Parliament
“to designate certain matters as ones which”
should
“be resolved in the political … sphere”.
I come now to the point of precedent raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for whose conversations I was very grateful. They asked a specific question and voiced their concerns that this clause sets a precedent. It is not so. As I have explained, Clause 3 is a very specific clause drafted with a particular purpose in mind; namely, to confirm a widely shared view of the nature of the prerogative powers to dissolve and call Parliament. For this reason, it is more accurately described, to use the phraseology of the independent review, as a “codifying clause”—a clause that in effect seeks to prevent the courts in future declaring something to be justiciable that is already currently understood to be non-justiciable.
In this case, it is seeking to ensure the non-justiciability of the prerogative powers for the Dissolution and calling of Parliament, which traditionally the courts have had no role in reviewing—nothing more. This is a bespoke exclusion to address this precise task.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
This may be an observation intended to help the Minister. Since the Bill was drafted, the Judicial Review and Courts Bill has been introduced. It contains an ouster clause, but one that is qualified as opposed to absolute, so the argument that this is being used as some form of basis for future ouster clauses seems to be defied by recent legislative practice.
Lord True (Con)
I will come to that particular piece of legislation—definitely—since it has been raised. To complete what I was saying, the prerogative power to dissolve Parliament is the ultimate expression of humility on the part of the Executive, placing its future and power into the hands of the people. We therefore believe that Clause 3 is appropriate and necessary, as judgment on the Government’s actions in such matters should be left solely to the electorate at the polling booth. I stress that we are asking Parliament to consider these arguments and endorse this clause in this Bill—nothing more. The Judicial Review and Courts Bill, by way of contrast, contains an ouster clause to prevent the judicial review of decisions of the Upper Tribunal to refuse permission to appeal decisions of the First-Tier Tribunal.
I turn to the potential consequences of the amendments proposed. Deleting the wording or the clause would undoubtedly make the dissolution prerogative more susceptible to potential litigation. In effect, the decisions in Anisminic, Privacy International and Miller II potentially offer a route for a court, or more precisely a mischievous litigator, to derail an election process by taking the Government to court for calling an election for political imperatives with which they may disagree. The suggestion by noble Lords to delete “purported decisions” is equally disagreeable, for it would arguably provide litigators with a route to try to delay an election through a court case that could examine why an election has been called on one date rather than another. This, I think, we can all agree would be entirely undesirable.
The clause prevents political litigation about the timing of elections; litigation that I am sure your Lordships dread as much as I do and—I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood—I am sure much of the judiciary would dread. Let me emphasise what it is that we are trying to protect: it is nothing less than the legal certainty of our elections, which underpins our democracy. If the courts can vitiate a Dissolution decision, the principle of the legal certainty of our elections is violated and the courts are inescapably drawn, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said, into making decisions and weighing political imperatives that they are not equipped to do.
If there is an intervention, is the election timetable then suspended? Are the people to be informed that a court might deny them the right to have their democratic say? If the court process moves slowly, could the situation arise where a court then dismisses or questions an election result? Asking the courts to review a Dissolution decision is to ask them to weigh the political merits and imperatives of the decision; it is inherent in the nature of the question. If the courts can vitiate a Dissolution decision, the principle of the legal certainty of our elections is violated and the courts are inescapably drawn into making decisions and weighing political imperatives.
More practically, we must consider the risk that we might send a signal to mischievous and politically motivated litigators that they can disrupt the process with vexatious and frivolous claims against Dissolution. Even the threat of such a court case would be disruptive to the process, drag our judges into the political fray and cause huge expense and delay and a frustration of the democratic process. There is no surer way of risking the reputation of the judicial system among many sections of the British people, no surer way for the courts to be seen as a political institution, and no surer way to drag the sovereign into politics. These are not scenarios for which your Lordships can possibly wish. It is wise to take all the necessary steps to be absolutely certain, without a shadow of doubt, to ensure that these scenarios do not occur.
Finally, let me directly confront the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, that, by removing a judicial oversight, this clause allows a licence for the Executive—far from it. The exercise of the prerogative power is a question for the political, not the judicial, sphere, and the remedies and constraints are in that political sphere.
Our constitution has for centuries proved well able to avoid extremities and has provided for accountable checks on the Executive, and these checks are both pre and post hoc. In terms of pre-hoc checks, a Prime Minister requests a Dissolution of the sovereign which, in exceptional circumstances, can be refused. In parallel, the core constitutional principle that the sovereign must not be drawn into party politics acts as an important deterrent to improper requests being made. That is an immense latent force in our constitutional arrangements. Furthermore, the Government, in response to the Joint Committee, amended the Bill prior to its introduction to Parliament so that the statutory election period will be triggered automatically by the Dissolution of Parliament. This will ensure that the theoretical possibility of a Dissolution without an ensuing election period is eliminated.
There are also post-hoc checks and incentives on the Executive that have worked for many years, effectively compelling Parliament to be called as soon as feasible after an election. The Government of the day must be able to command the confidence of the elected House. Unduly and unnecessarily delaying the calling or meeting of a new Parliament is not in the interest of any Government seeking to make progress on the mandate it has received at a general election. Most importantly, the Dissolution and calling of Parliament are powers that pave the way to a general election and a new Parliament. Again, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, reminded us, the actions of the Prime Minister and the Government are subject to the judgment of the electorate and, in due course, to that of a new Parliament.
If a Prime Minister acts—as we alleged one might—nefariously, even if a Prime Minister acts contrary to prior expectations and past practice, that will be judged by the electorate. It is also available to that new Parliament to undertake the nuclear option of passing a Motion of no confidence on the new Government, almost immediately, if it wishes, on an amendment to the Queen’s Speech. These practical constraints on the Executive have served us well for many generations. As we see, the checks on Dissolution are practical and political; they should not be legal.
I apologise for speaking at such length, but I hope noble Lords will understand the importance of putting these points on the record for your Lordships to consider between now and Report. If any other points have been raised in the debate, I will, of course, write. I sincerely hope that noble Lords will reconsider their amendments and urge them to join the view of the other place to not permit the entry of the courts and support this clause
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beith, that it has been a very good debate in light of the quality of the contributions that we have heard. I think it demonstrates the value of this House in being able to hear and rehearse these arguments.
I noticed yesterday when the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, was presiding over our proceedings and the Minister was at the Dispatch Box that the Minister resigned. When I saw that the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, was in the Chair this evening and the Minister was at the Dispatch Box I wondered for a moment whether something might happen.
My noble friend Lord True will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with the argument that he has advanced. I retain my points in opening that this clause, particularly the use of the word purported, does not restore the status quo ante and is objectionable on principle. I have previously quoted the late Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who once opposed an amendment being brought forward for the avoidance of doubt on the grounds that there was no doubt to be avoided. I think we may be in a similar situation here. It is quite clear that the courts would not get involved in this, despite what has been claimed about the direction of case law recently. I do not think the issue really arises, in part for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord True. The problems he adumbrated a few moments ago would be reasons why the courts would stay completely clear of entertaining any case relating to this.
My objection is really on the grounds of principle. I do not think it appropriate to try to limit the power of the courts because one disagrees with particular decisions of theirs. It is objectionable on principle. The argument has been advanced that it sets a precedent; my noble friend Lord True said, “No, this does not set a precedent; it is a bespoke solution.” The problem, I fear, is that on future occasions, Governments will find a bespoke solution based on what is included in this Bill.
I maintain my position. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said about the purpose being to keep the courts out of politics, but my fear is that putting “purported” in is designed to keep the courts out of the law. So I am not persuaded by what my noble friend Lord True said. I am sure that we will come back to this on Report but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment aimed at debating the expectation of how long a Parliament should be in normal circumstances.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, before I speak to Amendments 7 and 9, I want to say one or two things about the conditions for Report. Here we are, late at night. We have just listened to the Minister make what I think is the longest speech I have ever heard to sum up in Committee, at 30 minutes, and there are still some important issues to debate. I appreciate that the length of his speech reflected the complexity and importance of the issues in a constitutional Bill; that being the case, we will need the time on Report, with a full House and without the enforcement of unusually short speeches, to discuss them further.
The House of Commons went through the Committee, Report and Third Reading stages of this Bill in less than two hours—not good for a constitutional Bill. This House is going through its Committee stage in a few hours, stretching late into the night. I very much hope that, when we come to Report, the usual channels will ensure that we start in prime time and address the very important issues, particularly in Clauses 2 and 3, at length and with the House listening.
Amendments 7 and 9 are probing amendments on the balance between frequent elections and regular elections and, secondly, about what time of the year they should be held if possible. I speak as someone with experience of having fought two elections in one year, the first in February and the second in late October. Yesterday, I talked to a former Conservative MP who said that he remembered having the impression of being damp for an entire month during a winter election. It is good for democracy if we have elections on a regular basis and in good weather in the summer; that is why I suggest that, where possible, we should have elections in June.
It is also good because regular elections allow for a longer period to know when controlled expenditure should be imposed and when the Opposition are entitled to talk to the Civil Service to prepare for a potential change of government. The prime ministerial prerogative to jump elections when they think is most to their advantage—we have not yet talked about incumbency advantage—deprives the Opposition of the advantage to prepare properly for governance afterwards. Good governance matters to an effective constitutional democracy.
I am also concerned about the effective monitoring and administration of campaigns. I go and talk to my local electoral registration team from time to time; my ear has been bent on the difficulties of running election campaigns at short notice. I heard anger in Bradford some months ago about Conservative MPs saying, “There is no problem—all it requires is for staff to work harder if it comes to it”.
I tabled the amendments to test the question: how often do we want to have elections, and do we wish to leave it entirely open as to whether they are in December, January or June? In my opinion, the default should be June, not coinciding with the May elections or devolved national elections. The exceptions should be at times of the year not including winter. That is the purpose of my amendments.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I have found the debate fascinating today. I thank the Minister for the detailed responses he has given. I have not changed my mind on any of the issues, and I very much support the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Butler, and my noble friend Lord Grocott on the issues they have raised.
I looked around the House and realised I was probably the only person present who fought and won both the elections in 1974. I have been sitting here thinking what the weather was like. I know what it was like. On 28 February, it was snowing as I was still knocking up at 9.30 pm out in the constituency; it was a very important period in my life. My noble friend Lady Taylor asked me during one of the debates whether I would have supported a quick election a month after I had won in 1974. I was physically whacked at that point. Therefore, I was quite content, because the message came through after we all assembled that there would have to be another election later in the year. But that is not really what I want to raise.
I am going to devalue the debate; I am sorry about that. In respect of the length of a Parliament, I accept that the Bill restores the status quo; that is probably the least important part of the Bill. But in my view that is no excuse not to put the issue on the record for the future. I am going to repeat much of what I said on Second Reading. Five years is not the norm for general elections in the UK, to start with. I am no academic and no expert, but I know in the past that there was a legal maximum of three years, and there was a period where there was a legal maximum of seven years. I think the maximum has been five years since the Parliament Act 1911, but five-year Parliaments are rare.
Going early is a clear advantage to the sitting Government. That is why, during the 1970s, 1980s and probably 1990s, I became convinced that I was in favour of a fixed-term Parliament, because I could see the manipulation that was going on and the temptation for Governments to manipulate the economy, basically. In some ways, I regret that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 failed. It was designed to fail, almost. I accept it is going, and I am not trying to bring it back, but there are some difficulties with going back to the status quo ante.
There have been 20 general elections since 1945. Thirteen have been early, and the sitting Prime Minister won 10 out of those 13. Those 20, between 1945 and the last general election, were within 74 years, so we are talking about an election just under every four years. My experience in the other place was of seven general elections, and I sat for 27 years, so we averaged just under four years.
It was worse, in a way, not knowing when elections were going to be. My party was not a rich party. We had no offices in the city. Each time, I had to find somewhere for a headquarters, not knowing when the election was, and get phones in. It was difficult in those days, but nevertheless it was a joy to be in the other place for so long.
Giving the Prime Minister the choice of date is an advantage in the electoral system, and that is what I am against. I realise that building the checks and balances is not easy, because for every check there are disadvantages either way. But I do not think that it should be built into the system. As I said, I accept that we are abandoning the fixed term that we brought in in 2011. What I object to is the maximum length, which should be more like what we are actually used to, which is four years rather than five. There is some support for this view. People think that Governments run out of steam after four years, and there is some evidence for that but my point is not about it. My objection is quite different. Governments that seek to rig the electoral system, as this one is attempting to do, should be more limited as to how long it is before they meet the electorate. I want to shorten the time. I almost put an amendment down for three years to strengthen the point that I wanted to make—which I made at Second Reading, but when you have a good story to tell it is worth repeating.
This is nothing personal to any of the Ministers either here or in the other place, but there is a pattern whereby the Government are attempting overall to rig the electoral system. There is a succession of Bills and regulations before Parliament or due to come before Parliament, and I have a little list, which is not exhaustive, of their intentions: voter suppression, straight out of the Trump playbook, which we are about to get; action against the courts, shrinking their ability to hold the ruling party to account—that is the reality— curbing citizens’ right to protest; restricting the freedom of the press by removing the public interest defence; moves against election monitors and the referee in a concerted attack on the Electoral Commission, whose powers have never been as strong as I thought they should have been; widening the scope of the Official Secrets Act; and open attempts before our eyes to control the media via Ofcom.
There is a pattern here. We deal with each little bit as it comes along and have debates like we have had today, of a very high quality and forensic in looking at what is a very small Bill with massive implications—but the debate is in the context of this Bill. We have arguments already flattened by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who said, “No, the ouster clause won’t be used as a precedent, because there’s another Bill that hasn’t got the same ouster clause in.” This can make the point, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, did, that the draftsman will find a way. I am very disappointed that the draftsmen have co-operated with all this, because they have operated under instructions. There are all these issues and others, which I will not go over. I quoted Lord Puttnam at Second Reading, who gave a couple of further examples.
It all makes it harder for a Government to lose power. That is what the pattern actually creates. Would a four-year limit stop this? No. I am just trying to shorten it from five. Would it limit the damage? Well, maybe. Is it worth raising? Oh yes, because I intend to raise it at every possible opportunity; not just on this Bill, but on all the others as they come. I am not alone. There are the Select Committees that were mentioned earlier, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. We have had two incredibly powerful reports published just before Christmas from this House—the unelected House—about the threats to our democratic process, which is really important.
This is where the tragedy is in some ways. I would love to be able to switch off from what I have now and pop back to the other place for a couple of years and say, “By the way, it’s not quite like we think it is. Things have got bad—it’s a little bit back in time.” That is not possible, however, because I came to this place ignorant of its powers, even though I had been down there and was a Minister as I swapped over. There is massive ignorance among the Members of both places about our roles and what we are doing.
I do not have a solution to this because the argument is always, “You’re unelected, you don’t count.” But because we are unelected and we do not have a vote in a general election, we are disinterested in some ways. I see no problem in this place saying to the other place to think again, because we are only a sub-committee of the other place. All our powers are to ask it to think again. At every opportunity, the House of Commons rightly has the last word. It does not matter what happens—it has the last word in every case.
I know that in extremes the Parliament Act can be used, but it been used only twice in my time. It is still the case, however, that the Commons has the final word. That is the case I always put across when doing the Peers in Schools programme. Our powers are incredibly limited, but they mean we can say, “Think again”. Sometimes we say, “And again”. I think there are a couple of examples where it was three times, then this place—obviously, as it is unelected—said, “You’ve had a good think about it, we’ll leave it alone.” That is our function. The fact is that they did not change that in the Bill.
There is an interchange sometimes when Ministers talk about Parliament but are actually talking about the Government. Government and Parliament are interchangeable—well, to Ministers they might be, but to the rest of the population they are not. Ministers say that Parliament has decided, but they mean that the majority controlled by the Government in the other place has decided. It is the Government who have decided. The whipping system and the timetable system have decided. In some ways I greatly regret the timetabling system used down there, but we had good reasons. I have lived through guillotines and I know what the rules were. What was it—100 hours to get a guillotine for wasting time upstairs in Committee? That is why timetabling was brought in.
The fact is that we receive Bills in this place that have not been thoroughly examined in the elected Chamber and that is a tragedy. There was a time when I tried, as a Minister, to suggest that we ought to have Bills with the bits that had not been discussed highlighted, but it is incredibly complicated to say which sections were not debated or looked at; you just cannot do it. We have to use our common sense and gumption.
The fact is that they are not doing their job in the Commons. That is the reality. Their job is to keep an eye on the Government and to question what the Executive are doing—and they are simply not doing it. They are distracted by other things, such as trying to do the job of local councillors for a start. It is easy for me to say that because it was not like that. I do not want to say that those were the good old days and throw back, but the House of Commons is not doing its job of scrutinising the Executive and we are receiving legislation that has not been properly scrutinised. Then, unfortunately, the Government say, “Oh, it’s the House of Lords, always defeating the Government.” We are not; we are simply saying that we want the Commons to do its job. That is what we are asking them to do.
In this case, I would be astonished if Clause 3 is still in the Bill when it leaves this place. There is the amendment supported by the Cross Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Butler, about letting Parliament decide on Dissolution; if you have one, you do not need the other. It is simple. Keep the judges away—I absolutely agree with that—but there is an easy way to do it: let the elected House do it.
I have made my point, but I shall keep coming back. For each Bill and regulation that comes along, I will recite the same list, because there is a pattern and the penny has to drop at some point.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I very much enjoyed the speech of my noble friend, for whom—I hope he will allow me to say—I have a great deal of affection. I am very interested in the list that he has and will use again; there is great merit in much of it.
I remember the weather on 28 February 1974, and it was shocking—appalling. I think my noble friend said that there was snow where he was; in the constituency where I was working it was solid rain, but I will say that the turnout improved compared to the previous election because it was an election that people thought mattered. The other thing about the weather, referred to by a noble Lord when he talked about the time of year that he would like elections to be held, is that I remember the weather in June 1970—it was gorgeous where I was. As I am about to tell the House on Friday, I cast my first vote in the election of June 1970. It was wonderful weather and it was an election called early by the then Prime Minister—and he lost. That was my first recollection of general elections: you can be very disappointed.
I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment 8 to a vote, but I would find it difficult to join him if he did, because there is an element of flexibility in this. For more than 100 years, five years has been the standard length of a Parliament, and there is no reason to go beyond that. As he says, in his own experience—he has had a great deal of experience in another place in here—the period between elections averaged about four years. Therefore, without legislating, I think you will find that if you keep the period of five years, in practice events will unfold in such a way as to make it an average of about four years over a period of many Parliaments.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly, if only to remind your Lordships’ House that the Labour Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and I were not able to vote in 1974, but that is probably not a good reason for rising to the Dispatch Box at this time of night.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rooker for raising a number of issues that have concerned this House as a whole. I think it was my noble friend Lord Coaker who, during the debate on the police Bill last Monday, reminded the House that we were discussing measures to curtail protests that even Margaret Thatcher would not have contemplated during the worst times—as she would have seen it—of the miners’ strikes. We have moved a long way in what we think of as acceptable.
I point out that in 1838 the Chartists had six demands. All have been met, and we have gone beyond on some, such as the universal male suffrage that they wanted—we have improved on that—except for the one demand of theirs that has never been met, which is for annual elections. I am not making that case.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank noble Lords; I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Rooker, for tabling these amendments, which have initiated what has been an interesting short debate, if not necessarily always on the amendments. In 1974, I remember pushing a pushchair and delivering literature, though not necessarily for the Labour Party of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
If noble Lords do not mind, I will stick to the amendments and not answer any further questions. The Bill makes express provision for Parliament to automatically dissolve five years after it has first met. This is the most straightforward way to calculate the five-year term. It also remains the case that your Lordships’ House has an absolute veto on legislation to extend the life of any Parliament.
I first turn to the question of the length of parliamentary terms. I have heard the argument for a four-year term, and I heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that he does not necessarily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on this. However, the Government remain of the very strong view that five years is the right maximum length for any Parliament.
A maximum five-year term allows the Government time to undertake and implement their programme without having to start any electioneering. This is an important issue that I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, took into account as he did not mention it. Any Government have to deliver on the programme that is in their manifesto. Five years is a maximum period which I and the Government believe balances sensible, long-term government with ensuring that a Government and Parliament are accountable to the electorate in a timely manner.
In fact, we can that see parliamentary terms have developed their own effective and flexible rhythm. A strong Government seeking a fresh mandate might seek a Dissolution after four years. Anything less than four years is usually a sign of some political crisis or emergency. Often, Parliaments are dissolved for political necessity rather than choice, to put a policy or political question to the electorate or to resolve a political crisis. Moreover, shorter maximum terms invariably mean earlier speculation about whether a Parliament will see out its full term. This speculation does not serve Parliament, the public or businesses well. The former Cabinet Secretary noted in evidence at PACAC that longer-term Parliaments and longer-term tenures for both senior civil servants and Ministers would all be very good for Governments, who are increasingly having to face up to very long-term issues, as we have seen recently.
Finally, this question was reviewed by the Joint Committee, which did not question the starting premise that five years is the appropriate duration for parliamentary terms and the life cycle of a Parliament.
I will now address the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on the timing of elections. The noble Lord has reflected on the experience of the electorate in December 2019 and observed that winter elections are not desirable. I hope your Lordships will allow me to relate Stanley Baldwin’s comments on the impossibility of finding a time for an election that suits everyone. On 23 October 1935, when seeking a Dissolution, Mr Baldwin observed on the timing of elections:
“Therefore I have long come to the conclusion that you must rule out the spring and summer months because of financial business. You must rule out August and September because of the holidays. You are left with the autumn, but in no circumstances must you run into any interference with the Christmas trade.”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/1935; col. 154.]
Those light-hearted remarks contain an important kernel of truth.
Certainly, outside times of political tumult when exceptional elections are necessary, it may well be the case that a Prime Minister would prefer not to call on the public to venture out to cast their vote in the depths of winter. I share the noble Lord’s sentiment that winter elections do not provide the most ideal conditions for queuing at a polling station or canvassing from door to door. The election in 2019 was, of course, exceptional and was called to bring an end to a period of extended parliamentary deadlock.
Nevertheless, the purpose of the Bill is to provide for a system that will serve successive Governments. As the 2011 Act has taught us, we should not draft our constitutional arrangements in response to one event. There is no guarantee that, in the future, an election will not again be required in December—or February, as in 1974, which we have heard about. So it would not be wise to legislate in the long term for an event that was an exception to the rule. Our arrangements need to be adaptable. That is the important point.
The challenge of the approach set out in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is that it prevents the flexibility necessary for a Government to respond to particular circumstances. As such, I suggest to the noble Lord that to subject the timing of elections to this particular constraint—even if Parliaments do not normally run their full term—would run counter to that objective.
The purpose of the Bill is to revive arrangements that have stood, and will continue to stand, the test of time. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Rooker, for stimulating this fascinating discussion but I hope that your Lordships’ Committee will agree with me that Clause 4, unamended, is the most suitable approach to achieve that aim. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, noting that we may return on at least one of these amendments on Report. That remains to be discussed.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“(3) This Act comes into force when a revised Dissolution Principles document has been laid before Parliament and—(a) the revised Dissolution Principles document has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons; and(b) the House of Lords has debated a motion to take note of the revised Dissolution Principles document. (3A) The Dissolution Principles document under subsection (3) must be revised to refer to a “request” from the Prime Minister to the Sovereign to dissolve Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to implement a recommendation from the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act to revise the Dissolution Principles document.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the purpose of the two amendments in this group is to draw attention to recommendations made in the Joint Committee report and in a number of other parliamentary reports to which the Government have responded weakly and inadequately.
Paragraph 15 of the Joint Committee report states:
“The move to reduce executive dominance in key parts of the UK constitutional arrangements … was accompanied by a desire to clarify and make public the understanding of constitutional conventions.”
It then references the White Paper, The Governance of Britain, of 2007, and the drafting of the Cabinet Manual. The Constitution Committee’s report, Revision of the Cabinet Manual, published last July, stated at paragraph 35:
“We recommend that a draft update of the Cabinet Manual should be produced as soon as possible, and not later than 12 months from the date of this report.”
Paragraph 44 states:
“We note the open and constructive engagement which took place between the then Government and parliamentary committees on the first draft of the Cabinet Manual in 2010–11.”
Paragraph 45 goes on:
“We recommend that future drafts, including draft individual chapters, should be shared with our Committee and the relevant committee in the House of Commons for comment. This can help to achieve consensus”—
a word the Government do not seem fully to understand—
“on the text.”
It added that the next draft should commit to regular revision at the beginning of each Parliament—a summary of conventions, so that there is clarity and these things are understood.
On Dissolution principles, the Joint Committee at paragraphs 227 and 228 says that
“legislation—by definition—does not create or restore conventions … there needs to be a political process to identify, and to articulate, what those conventions are … The overwhelming consensus of those who gave evidence to the Committee is that the Dissolution Principles document falls short.”
Given that the Dissolution document as produced by the Government has received fairly universal criticism and very little approbation, it is quite remarkable that the Government have not yet provided a draft. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that a draft is now well under way and will shortly be provided. I say this with particular emphasis because we may well come out of the next election without a single-party majority. It is quite likely that there will be at least four parties which have two dozen MPs and another two parties which have perhaps a dozen, so there could be a very complicated outcome. At that point, we will need some clear guidance, understood by all those likely to be involved, about how government will be formed in a difficult situation.
The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in July 2021 pressed the Minister to issue a revised Dissolution principles document, which has not yet been provided, and the Minister in the other place, Chloe Smith, told the Commons on 13 September that there was
“ongoing dialogue to be had”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/9/21; col. 751.]
on Dissolution conventions. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us how that dialogue is going on, when it might conclude and whether he thinks it is appropriate for this Bill to become an Act before those necessary documents to mark and clarify our conventions, which should accompany it, have been published and agreed with Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord about the need for a revision of the Cabinet Manual. It is long overdue. I see the point of his amendment is to try to spur that, so I put on record the importance of bringing it up to date and incorporating quite a lot of material that needs putting in.
I am a bit wary of the noble Lord’s amendments, particularly Amendment 10, because he is trying to get Parliament to approve something which is really in the gift of government. The Dissolution Principles are those which would govern the Prime Minister in requesting a Dissolution, and that really is a matter for government and the principles that will govern that. It might be laid before Parliament, but there really should not be a requirement for it to be approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
There should be an update of the Cabinet Manual, but it is important to remember that the Cabinet Manual is not something that needs to be endorsed by Parliament. It is distinct from Parliament and draws together the provisions, as we understand them, and the conventions, but it is a manual for government to which we can have recourse. Yes, there should be dialogue with committees and consultations so that we can feed into that, but at the end of the day it is within the remit of the government. It is a government document, not one to be endorsed by Parliament.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, that it does not have to be agreed by Parliament, but the Cabinet Manual is a really interesting document. I remember when it came out; other noble Lords might remember it as well. I believe it was triggered and inspired by the then Government and the then Cabinet Secretary, who is a Member of this House. It is a pity that he is not here because he could play a big part in the short debate that we are having on this question.
For those who have never seen it, it was a fascinating document because it encapsulated the conventions that had existed for many years but had never been codified in any way. It was very useful. I feel very sorry, incidentally, that, for a debate such as this, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, is not here to take part. Our debates would be hugely enriched by having him here; of course, he coined one of the phrases of recent times, the “good chaps theory of government”. Many of the things that we have been discussing have illustrated ways in which people feel that we are departing from that theory and we are discovering that our constitution is capable of being abused. I do not want to go back over history, but we would not have had the discussion that we had about Clause 3 and references to the Miller case without that being an obvious example, and there are others.
Of course, this will not be pressed to a Division tonight, but a great deal more attention should be paid to the Cabinet Manual. I am rather unclear as to how it could be revised and who would be involved in doing it. A noble Lord said earlier that we were talking about where power lies in our constitution. When I visited a school recently, I recommended that the students read the Cabinet Manual, or at least have it to hand, because if they wanted to understand our constitution, that was an essential part of it. The sixth-formers looked at me rather blankly and I do not blame them in the slightest. That does not mean to say that I was wrong, because it still is very important. I am not sure how it could be updated, but it would be a very good thing. It is rather like when Gandhi was asked what he thought of civilisation in Britain and he replied, “Well, I think it would be a very good thing.”
Nevertheless, I support the spirit of the amendment and I would be interested to know whether we are going to come back to this on Report. If so, I hope to play a modest part in the debate at that stage.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I just want to say how much I enjoyed my noble friend’s speech. I very much agree with his points and those of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. The Cabinet Manual is an important document. It is a government document, not a parliamentary one, but we need to ensure that it is used properly and respected. That is a very important point to make.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I think that we have had a slightly longer and more interesting discussion on this than we anticipated at the start. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made a very valid point, not least because we have spoken a lot tonight about the normal conventions and practices of parliamentary politics. It remains to be seen whether the actions of this Government and this Prime Minister, in ignoring so many of them, will become the norm or whether, once he has gone, whenever that might be—it might be sooner than he anticipates—we will return to the normal way of abiding by the conventions.
I wonder whether the Cabinet Manual will be amended to say what happens or what should happen. I was amused earlier today when I read the section on the principles of collective Cabinet government. Paragraph 4.2 says:
“The Cabinet system of government is based on the principle of collective responsibility. All government ministers are bound by the collective decisions of Cabinet”,
which seems a remote concept at the moment, but perhaps we will return to those days as well.
Even though it is not within the power of Parliament to say that these documents should be updated, as with the Ministerial Code—the introduction to which now seems so dated and irrelevant in many ways because what is referred to in it has largely passed—there should be this regular updating. If we are to have a dynamic Parliament and a dynamic constitution, we need to update as appropriate.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has frequently looked forward to that fabled day when the Liberal Democrats will again have, as he sees it, a balance of power in government. Perhaps a manual could be published on what would be the likely behaviour of the Liberal Democrats in the event they had such constitutional authority.
Jokes apart, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising these points. They are two fundamentally important documents, which, as my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pointed out, are government documents. We published a Dissolution Principles document because we are aware that principles can operate effectively only when they are commonly understood and, yes, when there is tacit agreement that they should be respected, irrespective of the particular political challenges and circumstances of the day. There has been substantial discussion and scrutiny of the principles, including by the Joint Committee chaired by my noble friend Lord McLoughlin, by PACAC in the other place, and in dialogue back and forth.
As others have said, Amendment 10 proposes that there should be a process for Parliament to scrutinise a restatement of the principles in the form of a vote in both Houses, which has the difficulties that my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth and others referred to. The Government have reservations that this would be a step towards a codification of principles and conventions, just as we saw that the 2011 Act, which we have discussed, was not necessarily helpful because of the need for flexibility. In fact, Lord Sumption recognised in principle the challenges of codification when he gave evidence to the Joint Committee. He argued:
“One should be careful not to start codifying conventions, because their practical value is that they represent experience and practice … what is required to make Parliament work is not necessarily the same today as it was half a century ago.”
That will be so in the future. The Government believe that a careful balance needs to be struck between ensuring that there is a tacit agreement that these principles should be upheld—I acknowledge the duty to be mindful of the views of people inside and outside politics—and leaving space for these conventions to move in line with the political context.
In practical terms, on this and the next amendment, the Government would be concerned that this amendment means that the provisions of the Bill would only come into effect once both Houses had considered and voted on a Dissolutions principle. That risks creating uncertainty around the coming into force of the Act and, therefore, the arrangements for calling any election, which we have all agreed today should be avoided.
The same applies to Amendment 11. As noble Lords have emphasised throughout the debates today, constitutional conventions have a vital role to play in our parliamentary democracy. I am conscious that the separate tradition of the Liberal Democrats, which I respect, is that they wish more and more to be written down. The Cabinet Manual, alongside other authoritative texts such as Erskine May, is an important point of reference and reflection for how conventions are understood—but iterations enable evolution.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is quite right to say that it will be necessary to revisit these sections of the Cabinet Manual once the 2011 Act is repealed. The Cabinet Manual recognises that conventions continue to evolve, and the Government will in due course respond to the report of the Constitution Committee and set out their intentions with regard to updating the Cabinet Manual. We are grateful to the committee for its considered review of the manual and its thoughtful identification of the key issues that ought to be considered in terms of any update. I am acutely aware that the Government’s response is long overdue, and I have humbly apologised for this to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. We are carefully considering those recommendations and will respond in due course.
To continue on the amendment, the Government agree that the Cabinet Manual should be an accurate reflection of our constitutional arrangements, but we are of the view that this amendment for a parliamentary vote is unnecessarily restrictive, for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth and others. But the Government are particularly concerned that the provisions of the Bill would only come into force once a revised version of the Cabinet Manual has been published. Such an undertaking would necessarily require a considerable amount of work. Tying the provisions of the Bill to such a project risks creating uncertainty, which, again, we wish to avoid.
Both these amendments would run the risk of fixing our understanding of these conventions at a point in time—that is point one—undermining the flexibility that is essential to our constitutional arrangements. On the matter of the Cabinet Manual, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, which would add complications because of the Catch-22 situation: the Cabinet Manual draws its authority from its ability to accurately reflect our arrangements, but we have not yet determined in Parliament what the successor arrangements to FTPA should be.
While obviously accepting the importance of both the principles and the manual as well as their relevance across party, beyond party and beyond this Parliament, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the question really is: where are these documents and when are they going to be published? There were some very critical comments from various committees of both Houses, including the Joint Committee, about the lack of quality in what is currently provided in the Dissolution Principles and about the outdatedness of the Cabinet Manual, particularly the part of it that deals with Government formation.
There may be an overall majority for one party at the next election, which would be easier, but we need to future-proof the Bill as we take it through and to prepare for other eventualities. The Joint Committee marks that we are more likely to have non-majoritarian outcomes from elections in the coming years than we have had in the last 50. Perhaps the Minister will be prepared to talk between now and Report about being able to provide some statement on Report about a rather more definite timespan than “in due course”, which, as we know, means “kicked into the long grass for the next year or two”.
We need to have, as far as we can, some shared assumptions, some cross-party agreement, about these crucial conventions in our constitution. That requires trust. Trust is currently in very short supply; trust in this Government and this Prime Minister, if the opinion polls are correct, is currently going through the floor. Where trust is lacking, one needs written rules. Where written rules are challenged, we end up requiring statute. Yes, we would perhaps prefer the flexibility of shared assumptions, but in that case we need to talk about what they are and make sure that we all share similar assumptions, before we slide into a situation that could be another critical outcome or contested set of procedures around the next election.
I look forward to talking further with the Minister, and I may or may not wish to bring these amendments back in some form on Report. For the moment, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and I wish all your Lordships a very pleasant evening.