House of Commons

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

Thursday 10 February 2022

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

1. What discussions she has had with representatives of the racing industry on (a) developing a single customer view and (b) the forthcoming gambling White Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)]

I have had extensive conversations with the horse-racing industry and with hon. Members who represent constituencies with racing interests on the Gambling Act 2005 review in general and on the plans that the industry are voluntarily developing to share information on customers who are at severe risk of addictive gambling disorders.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Can the Minister confirm that when the draft proposals of the review are announced, there will be an impact assessment on the horse-racing industry? Will he meet me to discuss my alternative to the proposed single customer view, the single customer wallet, which would not only be cheaper and more efficient for the industry to bring in, but offer consumers better protections?

[Chris Philp]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his ideas. I assure him that proper impact assessments will be done. We know that horse-racing is a vital sport for the people who work in the industry. It supports many jobs, it provides leisure activities for many people, and it is a significant source of national pride and prestige. Nothing in the Gambling Act review, I hope, will do anything to undermine the financial condition of that great sport or its place at the heart of our national life.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the register. I caution the Minister that the civil service always underestimates the extent of potential for fraud and the black market. Whether with tobacco smuggling, excise fraud, VAT fraud, self-employment scams or covid scams, it is continually surprised by what happens. Before he brings out the gambling White Paper, will he talk to the racing and gaming industry to ensure that his proposals do not fuel the black market and organised crime?

[Chris Philp]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for attending the recent meeting that we had on the topic. We are, of course, concerned about the possibility of black market gambling. I hope there will be proposals in our review to give the Gambling Commission additional powers to tackle and combat black market betting. We will be mindful of the risks that he has highlighted; I have discussed them already with the Betting and Gaming Council and the industry. We need to balance protecting people who are at severe risk of gambling addiction and serious harm—some people even commit suicide—with ensuring that there is not a flourishing black market, which I am sure all hon. Members on both sides of the House would want to prevent.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar). I welcome the fact that the Minister will carry out an impact assessment on the possible effect on horse-racing of any changes that he proposes. He will be aware that racing depends heavily on bookmakers for about 45% of its income. I congratulate him on that policy and thank him for the way in which he is carrying out the review.

[Chris Philp]

I thank my hon. Friend for the meeting that we recently attended. As I said, we will consider the impact of the whole set of proposals covered in the gambling White Paper, which will obviously have a number of effects on different bits of the economy. As I said at the meeting with the all-party parliamentary group on betting and gaming a few days ago, we want to ensure that nothing in the review undermines the status of horse-racing.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Delays to gambling reform cost about £647 million each year and the Government have failed to act. It is not good enough. Up to 1.4 million people are considered to be problem gamblers, so I am struggling to see why the Government continue to drag their feet when the need for reform is crystal clear. What is the Minister doing in advance of the long-awaited White Paper, because we need to address the issue now?

[Chris Philp]

All kinds of measures have been taken to address some of those very serious problems, which I completely recognise and accept. For example, a year or two ago, the use of credit cards to gamble online was banned. As we speak, the industry is in the process of developing a voluntary single customer view. A number of things have been done.

We are working, and have been working, on the Gambling Act review at pace and it will be published in the very near future. It is important to get it right, however, which is why we have taken the time to consult extensively and listen to stakeholders. I have met many hon. Members on both sides of the House to listen to their views too. It is very imminent because, as the hon. Lady says, large numbers of people are suffering serious harm, up to and including committing suicide. That is why it is important for the House to act on, I hope, a cross-party basis, broadly speaking, to sort it out.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

2. What steps her Department is taking to support the UK tourism industry as covid-19 restrictions are lifted.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

The tourism industry has been severely affected by covid-19, which is why we have provided more than £37 billion in financial support to the tourism, hospitality and leisure sectors over the pandemic. The Government’s tourism recovery plan sets out our ambition to get visitor numbers back to pre-pandemic levels a year faster than independent forecasts predict. To help us to achieve that ambition, VisitBritain’s international marketing campaign launches this month to target pent-up demand in key markets.

[Huw Merriman]

Last weekend I visited the beautiful Rathfinny vineyard, and last summer I met the Minister in the De La Warr pavilion. These two gems are part of the Sussex Modern trail, which links our vineyards with our cultural and artistic icons. Would the Minister meet me to discuss why Southern rail is not promoting tourism offers such as those, which would not only provide a great boost to its own passenger numbers—needed after covid-19—but boost tourism in Sussex and elsewhere in the country?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Indeed, I was delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency last year. He has many gems—cultural, historic, heritage—as well as tourist attractions, so I can see why so many people would want to visit his part of the world. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss his proposals, some of which would involve engagement across Departments, and I would be happy to facilitate those conversations as well.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

14. One of the biggest drivers of tourism in my area is the city walls—the only complete set of city walls in the UK—but the local authority has to spend money from the highways budget on their upkeep. Does the Minister agree with me that such major heritage and tourism assets should be funded centrally, because they are national and, indeed, international treasures?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We do invest quite heavily in heritage, particularly with the culture recovery programme, and of course there is ongoing investment in heritage through the national lottery heritage schemes and others. Again, this is an area that sometimes involves cross-Government work, so I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his ideas and proposals.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to ensure reliable phone signal in (a) North Norfolk and (b) other rural areas.

[The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)]

We very much understand the frustration of poor mobile coverage in rural areas. That is why we agreed a deal with the operators to deliver the shared rural network, which tackles notspots and reduces the divide in connectivity between urban and rural areas. Norfolk will see coverage uplifts by the industry element of that programme, which is due to complete in June 2024.

[Duncan Baker]

As my hon. Friend may be aware, my constituency has many areas of outstanding natural beauty. They include Salthouse, Overstrand and Kelling, and I am sure she may want to spend her holidays there this summer. However, places such as those also have incredibly bad mobile phone reception, and residents are caught between better reception and blighting the area with mobile telecoms infrastructure. Would the Minister meet me to discuss how we can bring a better mobile signal to those areas without decreasing their natural beauty?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I can assure him that I know how beautiful North Norfolk is. I spent some time there last summer, and it is an incredibly picturesque part of the country. We want to maintain that, and that is why the shared rural network aims to transform mobile coverage without duplicating infrastructure, therefore minimising the visual impact. My officials have spoken to the shared rural network, and they will be getting in touch with his team. I would be happy to meet him after that to see how we can do more in this area.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

4. What steps she is taking to support film and TV production in the UK.

[The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)]

This Government’s actions have helped the film and TV industry bounce back from the pandemic. Our production achieved record success last year, and my right hon. Friend may have seen the vote of confidence given by the new Amazon Prime deal with Shepperton studios this week. Our covid-related support includes the £500 million production restart scheme and the culture recovery fund, which my right hon. Friend will know has awarded £117,000 to Maldon’s Rio cinema. We want to make sure not just that films are made here, but that they are seen on the big screen in cinemas across our towns.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the excellent news from Amazon Prime. Can she confirm that the film and TV production restart scheme, which was possible only as a result of Brexit, has so far supported production worth nearly £2.5 billion and supported 80,000 jobs? Given this success, will she consider extending the scheme beyond its end in April, and if that is not possible, will she try to obtain equivalent cover from commercial insurers at that time?

[Julia Lopez]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out how successful the scheme has been. It has supported £2.8 billion of production spend and over 92,000 jobs, which means we have kept production going and had a fantastic year. As he knows, the scheme was established as a time-limited and short-term intervention in response to a market failure because of the pandemic. It will continue until 30 June, but in the meantime we are working very closely with industry stakeholders and insurers to make sure that there is an effective transition to market cover when that scheme closes to new applicants in April.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving me advance notice of her absence today. I am not sure whether her own side would see that as a blessing or a curse, given that some of her recent performances have had—how shall we describe them—mixed reviews. Our public service broadcasters are responsible for two thirds of commissions outside London, and provide a pipeline of skilled and talented workers across our regions and nations. With programming that is sold around the world, they underpin our incredibly successful creative ecosystem. The levelling-up White Paper will soon impose a statutory requirement on the Government that their own policies will meet their new levelling-up missions. How will the Secretary of State square that with her plan to sell off Channel 4 and end the BBC as we know it? Will her plans to do so be evaluated against her Government’s new legal requirements for levelling up?

[Julia Lopez]

I confirm that we miss the Secretary of State very much. She is flying the flag for the UK in the global Expo today, and we are all proud of the work she is doing there.

I assure the hon. Lady that we very much support our public service broadcasting sector, and it has a huge role to play in levelling up the regions. We want to support that role going forward, and we have absolutely no intention to end the BBC. A decision has not yet been made about the sale of Channel 4, but if we looked at such a sale, we would very much look at commitments to the regions. We also do fantastic stuff on PSBs with apprenticeships, and those PSBs are creating jobs across the UK, which we very much want to keep going.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

5. What progress her Department has made on increasing the availability of gigabit broadband.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

15. What progress her Department has made on increasing the availability of gigabit broadband.

[The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)]

Gigabit broadband coverage has rocketed from 6% to 65% in the past three years. More than 80 different companies are now rolling out gigabit broadband, investing more than £30 billion between them. In hard-to-reach areas, we have already upgraded 600,000 premises, with a further 2.5 million premises in our procurement pipeline, as set out this week in our most recent winter update to Project Gigabit.

[Peter Aldous]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for her reply. I recognise the challenges of achieving nationwide gigabit broadband coverage, but it is essential if the levelling-up agenda is to be properly delivered. At present, the gaps in coverage in Suffolk extend to approximately 25% of premises predominantly in rural areas. What assurances can my hon. Friend provide that gigabit-capable broadband in such rural areas will keep pace with the wider drive towards nationwide coverage?

[Julia Lopez]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of good digital connectivity, and we want to ensure that there is no divide between urban and rural areas. There is already 97% superfast coverage in Suffolk, but we want to futureproof connectivity to take on board all the technologies that will be coming down the line. We are creating a competition friendly environment to encourage commercial roll-out in most areas, and we are then prioritising public money in areas where the commercial roll-out will not reach. Our regional supply of procurements is up and running, and I am pleased that Suffolk is in phase 1 of that programme. We are aiming to launch the procurement process by April.

[Selaine Saxby]

With the Government’s levelling-up announcement confirming plans for the UK to have nationwide gigabit-capable broadband by 2030, it is important that consumers in rural constituencies such as mine have access to every fibre internet service provider on the market, ideally via a wholesaler. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to help ensure that residents in North Devon and the wider south-west have, as consumers, fair and reasonable choices?

[Julia Lopez]

My hon. Friend is rightly back in her place and is holding my feet to the flames on these issues. Thanks in part to our gigabit strategy, there is a thriving market rolling out gigabit-capable broadband all across the country, but we cannot force providers to offer their services in specific locations. Where deployment is supported directly by publicly funded contracts, those contracts include requirements for wholesale access. For Project Gigabit, the procurement processes differentiate suppliers on the choice of retail offerings that they are able to bring. We are also supporting various industry initiatives to develop the wholesale market for smaller alt-nets.

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

In 2016, The Lee Parish Council in my constituency received an assurance about broadband provision from HS2 Ltd, that it would keep it

“updated on the outcome of discussions with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Broadband UK in relation to support for broadband provision for communities along the Phase One route.”

Apart from a few holding letters, The Lee Parish Council has not heard anything for three years. Will the Minister provide details about those discussions to reassure my constituents that they are indeed taking place?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for raising that. I am keen that any hon. Member should feel that they can write to me about issues in their area. We are trying to get a much better system up and running so that we can get such cases answered. I encourage her to write to me as I am very happy to look into her concerns.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I take this opportunity to send our best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for a speedy recovery from covid?

We have had a dizzying number of broadband targets, each weaker than the last. Which is the Government’s current target—is it nationwide gigabit-capable broadband by 2025 as they previously said, 85% coverage by 2025 as their national infrastructure strategy says, or the latest one of nationwide coverage by 2030? How confident is the Minister about meeting any of those targets given that the digital divide is growing, not narrowing, and she has no detailed plan for reaching communities that are not commercially viable?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Member for probing me on these matters and send our best wishes to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore). The target is 85%-plus by 2025, and we expect to have all our procurements under contract by the end of this Parliament. We are confident about meeting those targets which, given the increasing importance of digital connectivity to our prosperity, are vital to ensuring that we do not see digital divides emerge.

[Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)]

The Scottish Government have invested hundreds of millions of pounds in accelerating the roll-out of superfast broadband in Scotland, even though broadband is reserved. Will the Minister insist to Cabinet colleagues that levelling up plans must include finally delivering the funding necessary to roll out superfast broadband, as that is the United Kingdom Government’s responsibility?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Member for raising the important connectivity needs of Scotland. This is a Union issue and the Government are keen to help. I recently had a productive meeting with Kate Forbes—incidentally, I congratulate her on her pregnancy—who is an excellent Minister. Ensuring connectivity across the Union is very much part of our levelling up plans, and I am happy to continue working with the Scottish Parliament on such issues.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

The Government’s focus on gigabit roll-out is absolutely right and I am grateful that Buckinghamshire is included in the current public review of gigabit broadband infrastructure. Will my hon. Friend reassure me that there is a plan to tackle the problem in villages such as Mentmore in my constituency, where fibre has been installed but 20 commercially unviable houses have been left out, leaving those people and homes behind? How can we narrow that gap and ensure that once fibre goes into a village, it really reaches everyone?

[Julia Lopez]

This is a common challenge across the country. We are trying to focus public resource on premises that are not being connected by the commercial roll-out and ensuring that we share data with commercial providers so that we know which premises we need to cover in our contracts. I am happy to look into my hon. Friend’s area to ensure that we do that.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

6. What steps she is taking to strengthen and promote public service broadcasting.

[The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)]

Our public service broadcasting system is a critical part of our media landscape. We are committed to making sure that it continues to thrive in the face of a rapidly changing broadcast sector. That is why we are undertaking a strategic review looking at making sure that the PSB system delivers for audiences and supports the success of our incredible creative sector. We will set out the conclusions of that review in due course.

[Jamie Stone]

I want to put on the record my thanks for a useful meeting with the Minister this week about social tariffs for mobile devices. Channel 4 is close to my heart, as it is to those of many hon. Members. Will she assure me that any future owner of Channel 4 will be as committed to using small, local producers and providers as Channel 4 is at present? Have the Government carried out a risk assessment on what privatising Channel 4 might mean for small, local, important British producers?

[Julia Lopez]

It was a pleasure to meet the hon. Member this week to discuss the important issue of social tariffs as well as Union connectivity, which I know he feels passionately about. Channel 4 is valued by all of us. There is a debate to be had, however, about the best ownership structure for it. The Government believe that one of the strengths that any future buyer might see in Channel 4 is its links with independent producers—small independent producers in particular—and, were we to decide to sell it, we would very much want to see that protected.

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

An important part of public broadcasting is radio. Last October, the Government’s review into digital, audio and radio found that the Hope valley in my constituency has very poor DAB—digital audio broadcasting—service. What are the Government doing to improve digital radio access for rural communities such as the Hope valley?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the needs of the Hope valley, which he is right to do. We have conducted a review of this area, and we have been working with commercial radio and the BBC on this issue for a number of years. We do not expect them to be doing a great deal of extra work on DAB roll-out, but I am happy to continue looking into the matter and to consider the issues he highlights in his own patch.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

7. What steps the Government are taking to ensure diverse representation in (a) women’s and (b) men’s national cricket teams to help tackle racism in that sport.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

We must ensure that cricket, and indeed all sports, are accessible to people from all backgrounds. National team selection is not something the Government have control over—that is for governing bodies to decide—but I am sure we can all agree that the primary basis should be talent. We need that diverse pool of talent. I have had positive conversations with the England and Wales Cricket Board and the county clubs on ensuring that talent pathways are fully open to the diverse range of people who play the game at grassroots level.

[Kim Johnson]

The Minister makes some interesting points, but does he agree that actions speak louder than words? The game has been described as institutionally racist. Can a review of dressing room culture, being undertaken by Clare Connor, fix the deeply entrenched under-representation of black women cricketers when Ebony Rainford-Brent, the first black member of the women’s cricket team, said she had never been made to feel different until she entered the cricket world?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I agree with the hon. Lady on those concerns. There is a lot more to do in cricket and across sport as a whole. I have met the county chairmen and Lord Patel, as well as having dialogue with the ECB. I believe progress is being made, but I agree completely with her: I want to see actions, not just words.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my hon. Friend share my disquiet that Lord Patel, Yorkshire’s new chair, has been forced to publicly call out a group of individuals for seeking to delay and derail vital reforms of the club in order to combat the scourge of racism? Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to support Lord Patel in his fight, the ECB should state that international cricket can return to Headingley but on the strict proviso that members back Lord Patel’s reforms, we see a dilution of the power of the Graves Trust, and that they ignore the siren calls of those who wish to retain the shameful status quo?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his and the Committee’s work in this area. The decision to bring internationals back to Yorkshire is for the ECB and I have to respect that, but I have met Lord Patel, even just yesterday, and personally I am somewhat comforted and assured about the progress being made in Yorkshire. Indeed, I have seen good progress being made in cricket overall, but I want to see a lot more. I reiterate that the decision is for the ECB, but I am sure that it will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

8. What steps she is taking to close the digital divide between people (a) with and (b) without access to the internet.

[The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)]

Access to the internet is increasingly important to people’s life chances. Today, over 65% of premises can access gigabit-capable networks, but we have ambitions to do much more, precisely because we want to ensure that a more profound digital divide does not emerge. The Government are encouraging broadband providers to roll out low-cost broadband social tariffs for low-income households, so that the internet is more affordable. We are highlighting those services via work coaches at jobcentres. We are also looking to boost digital skills. Adults can undertake specified digital qualifications up to level 1 free of charge.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

The Local Government Association has warned that digital exclusion is more likely to impact those on low incomes, the over-65s and people with a disability. At the start of the pandemic, only 51% of households earning between £6,000 and £10,000 had home internet access. Meanwhile, my city is significantly below the UK average for gigabit broadband availability. With vulnerable people in Portsmouth increasingly being left behind by the Government, what specifically is the Minister doing to address affordability and bridge the digital divide?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising such an important issue. I cannot disagree with some of the LGA’s analysis. I am happy to look into his city in particular, but this is an issue I discussed with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) just this week. Providers are offering social tariffs but we do not think uptake is strong enough. We all have a responsibility in this House to promote social tariffs, so that those who need to get on to the net can. We are looking at various initiatives to make sure people can get online, because it is so important for people’s life chances.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

9. What progress her Department has made on implementing its plans to refurbish local tennis courts, announced on 2 October 2021.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

We are fortunate in this country to have some of the world’s top tennis talent, including Emma Raducanu, Alfie Hewett and Gordon Reid, and I should take this opportunity to wish our athletes in Beijing the very best of luck—we have talent across so many sports. At the spending review, the Government announced £30.1 million to renovate park tennis courts in the UK, in partnership with the Lawn Tennis Association. Plans involved reviving over 4,500 courts, including those in poor or unplayable condition at more than 1,500 venues.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to the Minister. That superb mapping exercise across the country by the LTA to benefit, as he said, over 4,500 public courts could be of huge benefit to families, sport, health, local pride and community improvements. My question is a nice and simple one: when will the application forms be ready? Will my hon. Friend share with us some good news?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for his excitement about our work on tennis courts. He never misses an opportunity to ask that question—I cannot venture into the Tea Room without him doing so—but I appreciate his persistence. Delivery will commence in the next financial year, from April 2022, because I am aware, as he is, that this will make a really big difference to tennis in this country.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I ask the Minister to take this even more seriously? I know that the English team has not being doing well in some sports, but can we look seriously at the opportunities to get a much broader range of young people coming in to play tennis and, in particular, cricket? There seems to be a real difficulty for children in many schools to pursue cricket and tennis, and it seems that most of the people who end up rising to the top come from very privileged backgrounds.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Member raises some important points. We do punch above our weight in global sport and that is partly due to the success and investment from Sport England and, indeed, UK Sport. We will be refreshing the school sport and activity action plan and working closely with the Department for Education, focusing very much on engaging young children in a whole variety of sports, for the reasons that he expressed.

[Mr Speaker]

Such as rugby league.

Topical Questions

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)]

I am standing in for the Culture Secretary, who is today promoting the UK’s national day at the Dubai Expo and welcoming the Queen’s baton ahead of the Commonwealth games. Our Department is at the heart of the levelling-up agenda, through fantastic digital connectivity for all and initiatives such as the new national youth guarantee to enrich the lives of young people in every corner of our country.

We continue to make brilliant progress on our plans for a blockbuster 2022, during which we will honour Her Majesty the Queen, who this week marked 70 years of steadfast service to our country. Two nights ago, we celebrated the best of our world-class music industry at the BRITs. To echo the comments from the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), the ministerial team would like to wish the very best of luck to Team GB, who are flying the flag for the entire country at the Beijing winter Olympics.

[Ruth Jones]

Musicians in Newport West and across the UK have been campaigning alongside leaders in the Musicians’ Union, such as Councillor Sarah Williams, for a touring visa that will allow them to showcase British musical prowess. When will the Minister wake up and fight for the musicians’ passport that people so desperately want and need?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Member for raising the issue of touring. I have been doing a lot of work with officials and other Departments to ease some of the challenges that people have had since we left the EU, and I will continue to work on this issue.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

T5. Broadcast news has a long-standing duty of balance, which moderates public debate, tests opposing views and helps forge consensus across our country, but today’s digital world means that more and more of us get our news through social media platforms, where individual filter bubbles can feed us more of one side without ever showing an alternative view, driving extremism, radicalisation and division instead. Is it now time to extend that duty of balance to include social media platforms?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)]

My hon. Friend raises an important question, but we need to distinguish between broadcasters, or indeed newspapers, that are exercising editorial judgment, and social media platforms that are carrying content generated by other users. However, we will introduce shortly—in the coming weeks—an online safety Bill that will impose new duties on social media firms in connection with illegal content, content that is harmful to children and content, including disinformation, that is harmful to adults. I hope that will go a long way towards addressing the points that he rightly raises.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

I am afraid that the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) was far too vague. Musicians and orchestras are facing a touring crisis. We need an EU-wide cultural touring agreement that includes allowances for cabotage, carnets and customs rules. That needs to happen now, so what are Ministers doing to sort the problem as a matter of urgency?

[Julia Lopez]

We have been working closely across Government to deal with some of the cabotage issues. The issues around agreements with member states are being addressed on a bilateral basis. We have had great breakthroughs with Spain and are working closely with Greece, but most people can work in those countries for up to 90 days. I am happy to engage with the hon. Gentleman further on the issue.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Swimming is massively important not just for health reasons, but for safety in our island nation. Saltash swimming pool is an excellent facility. What more can the Government do to ensure the long-term future of such facilities?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

I know that my hon. Friend is passionate about this issue, because we spoke about it when I visited her constituency last year. She is right that swimming is a vital life skill, as well as being very good for our physical and mental health. We have provided the sport sector with £1 billion of financial support through the pandemic, and launched the £100 million national leisure recovery fund precisely to try to ensure that swimming pools stay open. Further investment through Sport England and other bodies is forthcoming. I would be happy to facilitate further discussions between my hon. Friend and Sport England.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

T2. The Minister will remember that the Government were strangely reluctant to implement a ban on the Chinese firm Huawei to prevent it from participating in the United Kingdom’s critical digital infrastructure because of the potential significant security risks. We now discover that the man who has just been appointed director of communications at No. 10 lobbied very hard against that ban. In the light of that information, will the Minister undertake to review the timeline for removing Huawei from our critical infrastructure, to ensure that Britain’s security cannot be compromised by the interests of the Prime Minister’s pals?

[Julia Lopez]

One of my first Acts as a Minister in DCMS was to take through the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021. We take these issues incredibly seriously, and I offer the hon. Gentleman reassurance that we have a whole package of work to ensure that our telecoms networks are secure. Those matters have not been influenced by other issues.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

Technology is changing the way in which listeners tune in to their favourite radio stations. Will the Minister set out her plans to secure future access for UK radio stations to smart speakers?

[Julia Lopez]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about social media platforms potentially becoming gatekeepers for radio stations. We are looking closely at this issue to ensure that radio stations can have their own data, protect their listenership and so on. I offer him reassurance on that point.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

T3. This Sunday I shall be taking part in a walk with members of The Big Step to highlight the issue of gambling advertising in football. The campaign recognises the harm that gambling does every single day, and the part that football advertising plays in grooming children and normalising gambling among adults. With a gambling Bill seemingly getting further and further away, are there any measures that will be in the final Act that could be implemented now, rather than waiting to dot every i and cross every t? Will the Secretary of State meet me and other members of the all-party parliamentary group for gambling related harm to discuss the matter further?

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Member for his question and for the meetings that we have had with the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). He is right to raise this serious issue, as people are suffering harm from gambling addiction. The review is getting very close now—he will not have to wait much longer—and the issues that he is raising will be squarely addressed. I am happy to meet him and the other members of the APPG at any time; if they just get in touch, we would be happy to organise a meeting.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

Good broadband connectivity is vital not only for leisure, but for working from home. But one street in my constituency is a street of two halves—one with 8 megabits per second and the other with 1,000 megabits per second. How can we address these issues? Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we deal with urban notspots?

[Julia Lopez]

I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these matters. We are trying to target public subsidy at areas that are not being covered, including looking at individual premises. I will look into her particular case.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

T4. Last year it was revealed that across the whole sporting sector, only 7.9% of board members were from a black, Asian or ethnic minority background. That is damning, given the contributions made by black men and women across sport. Representation matters; it brings different experiences and perspectives—and, most importantly, it leads to better decision making. It is Race Equality Week, and the theme this year is “Action, not just words”. Does the Minister agree that the time for action to increase representation at board level across the sporting sector is now? What action will he take to make that happen?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Lady makes very important points. As we discussed earlier, sport should be for all, on and off the pitch. We need to make sure that there are opportunities right across sport. I believe that progress is being made—diversity and inclusivity are at the top of the agenda for many sportspeople I talk to—but she is right that we need more action, not just warm words.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I welcome greater efforts by the Government to improve internet access, but I met the families federations of the Navy, Army and the RAF, and they are concerned about access to the internet across the military estate. May I invite the Department to do a study on internet access on bases for our armed forces, and to report back to Parliament?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that issue in the Chamber; it has not been raised with me before. I would be happy to look into improving access to the internet for our military.

[Mr Speaker]

I must say that Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport questions are a major agenda item, and I do not think that we give it long enough. I hope that others will listen to that. So many people could not get their question in; I can only say sorry. I believe that it should be a full hour.

The Attorney General was asked—

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

1. What recent assessment she has made of the performance of the CPS in Yorkshire.

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

4. What recent assessment she has made of the performance of the CPS in the west midlands.

[The Attorney General (Suella Braverman)]

Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate recently published a report on CPS performance in the west midlands, and it is due to report on Yorkshire and Humberside in April. I am pleased to say that, despite the pressures of the pandemic, the report on the west midlands found that commendable improvements had been made, including in seeking orders to protect complainants and witnesses, and in handling third-party disclosure.

[Alexander Stafford]

Youth crime plagues several parts of Rother Valley; there are hotspots around Greenlands Park in North Anston, the market area in Dinnington, and the Queen’s Corner in Maltby. How is the CPS tackling serious youth crime and youth antisocial behaviour in Rother Valley and across the whole of South Yorkshire?

[The Attorney General]

My hon. Friend is an energetic campaigner and spokesman for those of his constituents who are, sadly, afflicted by crime. The simple answer to his question is: more prosecutors, better training and closer liaison with the police. The CPS has an area youth justice co-ordinator, who is responsible for local training and sharing best practice. Last month, the CPS team in South Yorkshire secured a murder conviction and a life sentence with a 17-year minimum for Kyle Pickles, who was responsible for the tragic murder of 15-year-old Loui Phillips. I hope that Loui’s family can take some solace from the fact that justice was done in that tragic case.

[Jack Brereton]

I thank the Attorney General for her response. I have written to her about the need for the CPS to better understand local circumstances when making decisions. Will she look again at the possibility of co-locating CPS lawyers in local police stations, in order to ensure that they make the best possible decisions, based on local knowledge?

[The Attorney General]

I have seen my hon. Friend’s letter. The point that he raises is critical to the success of the work of the CPS and the police. Closer liaison and better working between police and investigators creates better outcomes for victims and at trial. That is why I am pleased that the west midlands is an Operation Soteria area—that operation is pioneering and institutionalising closer working, by ensuring early investigative advice, improving action plans, and ensuring closer and better scrutiny of the decisions of the police and the CPS. It is a great area where there is some good work.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What steps she is taking to help ensure effective prosecution of financial crime.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

8. What steps she is taking to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the (a) Serious Fraud Office and (b) CPS in tackling fraud and economic crime.

[The Solicitor General (Alex Chalk)]

In 2020-21, the CPS prosecuted over 6,500 defendants for fraud, with an 85.6% conviction rate. Meanwhile, in the last five years, the Serious Fraud Office have secured court orders requiring the payment of over £1.3 billion from defendants to the taxpayer. We are determined to build on that to make the United Kingdom a more hostile environment for all forms of economic crime, including fraud.

[Mr Sheerman]

But the truth is that the scandal of the bounce back loans is enormous. We know now that financial crime is being driven by very sophisticated crime syndicates. My constituents want to know when the Government are going to get serious about this. Where is the economic crime Bill? Where is the real focus on trying to get these billions of pounds back? They have been stripped from the Government, under the most incompetent Chancellor of the Exchequer I have seen in my 40 years in Parliament.

[The Solicitor General]

To deal with that last point, I find that an extraordinary point to make. It was this Chancellor who ensured in the hon. Member’s constituency that the money was rolled out to save jobs in Huddersfield and we make absolutely no apology for that—millions of pounds to save lives.

Where the hon. Member is right is that fraud shatters lives and destroys trust. We are determined to deal with that. That is why this Government put £400 million in the spending review to support the National Economic Crime Centre and the National Crime Agency to ensure we crack down on fraud. He will see an awful lot more prosecutions, I assure him.

[Grahame Morris]

I thank the Minister for that response. However, overall, reports of fraud went up by 33% from 2020-21 but the number of police officers dealing with economic crime has increased by just over 6%. What is he doing to ensure the police and the prosecuting authorities are properly resourced to deal with the country’s rising tide of criminal fraud?

[The Solicitor General]

At the 2019 spending review, the CPS received over £80 million. At this spending review, the Government awarded an additional 12% to boost the number of prosecutors and the capability. In addition, as I indicated, £400 million is to be allocated to the NECC and the NCA. That is over and above the funding that has gone into the taxpayer protection taskforce: £100 million and 1,200 staff. This Government are serious about cracking down on economic crime and we are delighted to support those efforts.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Might I say, Mr Speaker, that the Law Officers are entitled to perhaps a good half an hour of the House’s time as well?

The Solicitor General probably has more experience of prosecuting serious fraud hands on than anyone else in this House. From my own experience at the Bar, I know he is right when he says that fraud is not a victimless crime. Does he agree that we need a joined-up approach across Government to tackle this effectively, not just the excellent work that is being done to improve the Crime Prosecution Service’s results, but support from the Home Office to ensure that Action Fraud is not the black hole it is at the moment for many people who lose money in what are termed small-scale, lower-value frauds, but are massively important to them? At the other end of the scale, we need to look at tightening up our laws on corporate criminal responsibility, so we can catch the high-level fraudsters as well. We need approaches on all those fronts.

[The Solicitor General]

As so often, my hon. Friend speaks authoritatively. He is absolutely right that fraud shatters lives and can destroy people’s future in the process. He is right that we need to ensure that the most serious frauds are properly prosecuted—which is why the Serious Fraud Office has received additional funding in the spending review—but also that so-called lower-level crimes are properly resourced. That is why the special crime division of the CPS is doing important work, and why it is increasingly getting the resources it needs to ramp up its capability to take the fight to fraudsters.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

This is hard to believe, but on 4 February this year Peter Swailes junior was sentenced for a crime that involved financial fraud. A person was kept in his shed for up to 40 years. The CPS managed to get a conviction, but he was not sentenced to any time in prison. I wonder whether the Attorney General would look at the case to see if it was unduly lenient.

[Mr Speaker]

I must admit, I would like an answer but we have to be careful that supplementaries really are linked to the question, which was about financial crime. I think the person mentioned in the hon. Gentleman’s question will have suffered financially as well so I am sure the Minister can answer accordingly.

[The Solicitor General]

We will of course look into that case. Sentencing is a matter for the independent courts, but there is a power to refer cases if they are unduly lenient. I am happy to give that case close attention.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Lord Agnew resigned as a Government Minister because the Treasury

“appears to have no knowledge of, or little interest in, the consequences of fraud to our economy or society.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2022; Vol. 818, c. 20.]

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy should resign for saying that fraud is not a crime people experience in their day-to-day lives, but what about the Law Officers’ culpability? Will the Solicitor General tell us why, according to the latest figures we have obtained from his Department, the Crown Prosecution Service has cut the number of specialist fraud prosecutors by more than a quarter in the past six years, from 224 at the end of 2015 to 167 at the end of 2021?

[The Solicitor General]

I send our best wishes to the shadow Attorney General as she recovers.

The hon. Gentleman is not right in the way he characterises the Government’s approach. He did not mention, as I respectfully suggest he ought to have, the £100 million that was invested in the taxpayer protection taskforce. That is 1,200 staff who have dealt with 13,000 inquiries in respect of fraud and recovered £500 million already and expect to recover significantly more. It is not just about the CPS; what about the National Cyber Security Centre, which took down 73,000 scams last year? I am pleased to note that the CPS has received an additional 12% in funding over the course of this spending review period. It is ramping up its capability and taking the fight to fraudsters.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

3. What steps she is taking to help ensure that the Government act in accordance with the rule of law.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

7. What steps she is taking to help ensure that the Government act in accordance with the rule of law.

[The Attorney General (Suella Braverman)]

The rule of law lies at the heart of the UK constitution and the Law Officers have a particular role in respect of upholding the rule of law. Together with the Solicitor General, I take that responsibility very seriously wherever we are called on to give advice.

[Dan Carden]

On the morning of 8 December, the Attorney General went to Downing Street to advise the Prime Minister after the emergence of the now infamous video of staff in Downing Street joking about parties. That lunch time, the Prime Minister came to this Chamber to say that no parties had taken place in Downing Street and that no covid rules had been broken. Did the Attorney General approve of those comments? If so, was she colluding with the Prime Minister, or did he mislead her?

[The Attorney General]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valiant attempt, but he should be aware of the Law Officers’ convention, which means I am prevented from commenting on the fact or the content of any legal advice provided by Law Officers to members of the Government.

[Dr Huq]

From their early work on Prorogation to the now daily revelations about lockdown-busting parties, this Government have had a fair few brushes with the rule of law. I know the Attorney General cannot comment on an ongoing criminal investigation, but will she tell us whether, when the investigation is concluded and all the 50 email questionnaires come back, anyone found to have breached lockdown regulations, whatever their rank, will face the same consequences as Joe Public did? Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), if there have been breaches of the ministerial code, will there be resignations?

[The Attorney General]

The Prime Minister has made his position clear and I am not going to add any more in the light of the live police investigation. The hon. Lady mentioned the rule of law; fundamental to the rule of law is democracy. I am proud to support this Prime Minister, who has honoured democracy by delivering Brexit and is now leading not just the UK but the world in beating covid. Had the Labour party been in charge, it would have cancelled Brexit, not delivered it, and we would have been in more lockdown, not less. On the big calls, Labour gets it wrong.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Thanks for that peroration but, to come back to reality, this week the Leader of the Opposition was obstructed while entering this House by disorder on the streets outside following the Prime Minister’s inflammatory remarks at that Dispatch Box. It is the Attorney General’s job to advise Ministers, including the Prime Minister, on acting in accordance with the rule of law, so what advice does she have now to prevent his behaviour from leading to any further breakdown in law and order?

[The Attorney General]

All violence is unacceptable, and I am grateful to those police officers who stepped in to assist the Leader of the Opposition. No one should have to endure that experience. The Prime Minister has spoken on the subject; I am not going to add any more to his comments. What I will say is that on the big calls Labour gets it wrong, and on the things that matter, this Prime Minister and this Government are leading us through covid and international diplomacy against Russian aggression.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Was the Attorney General able to read an interesting article this week by her noble Friend, former Conservative Minister Baroness Altmann, warning of a “slippery slope” towards authoritarian rule and an elected dictatorial elite seeking to override Parliament? Whether it is undermining judicial review, shredding human rights protections, endless ouster clauses, restricted appeal rights or tearing up international treaties, none of it is upholding the rule of law. Is not everything the Attorney General is doing putting the Government above the law?

[The Attorney General]

I strongly refute that suggestion. I am not aware of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but the freedoms and protections that we all enjoy rely fundamentally on the rule of law. I know he understands that: it is an important constitutional principle that demands equality under the law and access to an independent judiciary. The Government are subject to the law. Those are the foundational principles that I adhere to and that I know this Government stick to.

[Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)]

5. What recent discussions she has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) the devolved Administrations on proposed legislation to make it easier to amend or remove retained EU law.

[The Attorney General (Suella Braverman)]

The Brexit freedoms Bill will once and for all take back control of the UK legal system, ending the special status of retained EU law and making it easier for the democratically elected UK Government to amend or remove it. The devolved Administrations have been kept informed of the progress of the reviews into retained EU law that will inform the Bill. The Government have engaged regularly with the DAs on a wide range of EU exit and EU engagement issues and we look forward to continuing that close working relationship.

[Allan Dorans]

On Friday 28 January, Ministers of the three devolved Administrations were called to a meeting with the Attorney General at very short notice—the very next day, in fact—to discuss the so-called Brexit freedom Bill, which will have significant impact on hundreds of areas controlled by the devolved Governments. The meeting has been described as

“a rushed exercise…with nothing more than a vague verbal briefing”,

with

“no effort by the UK government to properly consult devolved governments on the details of the plans nor seek their views on their impacts on devolved areas of policy and law.”

Will the Attorney General make an unequivocal commitment today that the devolved Administrations will be consulted extensively before any further decisions are taken that would affect their existing policies, and specifically in relation to retained EU law?

[The Attorney General]

Of course there will be continued and meaningful engagement with all the devolved Administrations in this process. It is an important opportunity and an important moment for our whole United Kingdom, and I very much look forward to the input of all the DAs.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

6. What recent discussions she has had with the Serious Fraud Office on the potential level of fraud losses arising from covid-19 related contracts awarded by the Department of Health and Social Care in 2020-21.

[The Solicitor General (Alex Chalk)]

I meet regularly with the director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss case work and corporate matters. I can confirm that the SFO is indeed investigating a number of suspected fraudulent applications for covid loans, but I can neither confirm nor deny that it is investigating frauds specifically connected to covid-19 contracts awarded by the DHSC.

[Neale Hanvey]

The Good Law Project has now uncovered the existence of an additional 18 VIP lane contracts, bringing the total to 68. Between them, they were awarded a total of £4.9 billion in personal protective equipment contracts. Gareth Davies, the head of the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General, has said that the Department of Health and Social Care was

“open to the risk of fraud.”,

and that he has not received

“adequate assurance that the level of fraud losses are not material.”

What steps does the Attorney General, or the Minister, advise should be taken to uphold the rule of law and assure the House that contracts awarded through the Government’s VIP lane were not fraudulent?

[The Solicitor General]

It is extremely important that we in this House do not inadvertently misrepresent a judgment that has been made in the High Court. In the case that the hon. Gentleman refers to, the Court indicated that the arrangements did not confer any advantage at the decision-making stage of the process; that the company’s offers were very likely to have meant it being awarded contracts even without the arrangements; and that there was sufficient financial due diligence in respect of both sets of contracts. Without seeking to go behind the decision of the Court in that case, it is important that it is placed in its proper context. This Government will abide by the rule of law.

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

9. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Serious Fraud Office in recovering the proceeds of crime.

[The Solicitor General (Alex Chalk)]

The SFO has had a very positive year in delivering on its commitment to recover the proceeds of crime. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) will listen, so far in 2021-22 the SFO has obtained more than £44.5 million in new financial orders from the courts, and at the same time it has successfully recovered more than £45 million by enforcing these and existing orders. Those are the largest recorded sums obtained and recovered in a single year by the SFO.

[Caroline Ansell]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his response and hope that there is some hope therein for my constituents who, just two years ago almost to the day, wrote to me about their personal case of how the London Capital & Finance scandal had impacted them. In October of 2021, the only update offered by the SFO was that investigations were ongoing. What assessment can he make of that progress, and what hope can I offer my constituents?

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for very properly pressing this case on behalf of her constituents. The SFO continues to investigate the dealings of London Capital & Finance plc and associated companies. The size and complexity of those cases, including the sheer number of victims and witnesses, means that it can take a significant period for a full investigation to be carried out. I meet the SFO director regularly to discuss casework, and I can assure my hon. Friend that driving forward the fastest possible case progression is a priority for me and for the Attorney General. I want to end with this point: over the last five years, thanks to the work of the SFO, a full £1.3 billion has been returned to taxpayers over and above the costs of running the SFO.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware of actions that have been taken against the Serious Fraud Office and individuals who work for it by those who seek to hide money—ill-gotten gains—that they wish to launder. It is disturbing that they can take action against individuals who work for agencies that are there to investigate such crimes and criminal behaviour. What action can be taken to protect those individuals from such abusive litigation?

[The Solicitor General]

I am happy to discuss that matter with the hon. Gentleman. Where criticisms are made of the Serious Fraud Office, we will have no hesitation in acting robustly and promptly. That is why, for example, just yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General ensured that an investigation was set up in respect of the findings in the Unaoil case.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

10. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the CPS in handling cases where the defendant has a mental health condition or disorder.

[The Solicitor General (Alex Chalk)]

New and refreshed training has been rolled out for prosecutors, information sharing between agencies is being improved and the CPS is developing a mental health flag on its case management system. These positive steps were recently recognised in a criminal justice joint inspection report.

[Selaine Saxby]

Does my hon. and learned Friend welcome the greater use of mental health treatment requirement orders for offenders subject to community orders or suspended sentences? Will he engage with Ministers across justice and health services to ensure that sufficient funding is in place to enable the long-term adoption of this approach in Devon?

[The Solicitor General]

Yes and yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to welcome the use of mental health treatment requirement orders, because they provide courts in Devon and elsewhere with a powerful tool to rehabilitate offenders at the same time as ensuring they are properly punished for their crimes. Thanks to record support through the NHS long-term plan funding, plans are on track to introduce primary care MHTRs to half of England by 2023.

[Mr Speaker]

Final question, the one and only Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In addition to those with mental health disorders, people with other disabilities such as hearing impairment require additional support in court. This House has taken steps to make that happen for those who are hearing impaired. Can the Minister advise what services are deemed necessary for trial proceedings to take place for those with hearing impairment disabilities?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. Whether someone is a victim, a witness or a defendant, they have the right to be able to hear what is going on in court. There are of course facilities already in place—hearing loops and so on—but the court retains the discretion to ensure that special measures are in place so that defendants can have the right to a fair trial and witnesses can have their voices heard.

Russia Sanctions Legislation

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

10:34

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the status of the Russian sanctions legislation the Government said would be put in place by 10 February.

[The Minister for Europe (James Cleverly)]

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out on 31 January, we are now laying legislation to broaden the designation criteria for the Russia sanctions regime. As Minister for Europe, I have signed the legislation that we will lay before Parliament and intend to come into force this afternoon. We are toughening and expanding our sanctions regime in response to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. This legislation will significantly broaden the range of people, businesses and other entities that we can sanction in response to any further Russian aggression. As the Foreign Secretary has set out, this will amount to the toughest sanctions regime against Russia that we have had and mark the biggest change in our approach since leaving the European Union.

The Foreign Secretary is in Moscow as we speak, calling on Russia to pursue a diplomatic solution to this crisis. We have made it clear, however, that if Russia continues to ignore calls to de-escalate and respect Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty, it will face serious consequences. Alongside the United States and other international partners, the UK is preparing an unprecedented package of co-ordinated sanctions that mean those who share responsibility for Russia’s actions will bear a heavy cost.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.

I do not need to remind anyone in the House of the seriousness of the build-up of Russian forces on Ukraine’s borders. We stand united in opposition to Russian aggression and in support of Ukraine’s sovereignty. We urgently want to de-escalate this crisis and we support diplomatic efforts to achieve that goal, but our diplomacy must be matched by deterrence. On 31 January, the Foreign Secretary announced to Parliament the Government’s plan to put in place what she called

“the toughest sanctions regime against Russia”.

She said:

“The package that we are putting forward in legislation will be in place by 10 February”.—[Official Report, 31 January 2022; Vol. 708, c. 56-58.]

It is now 10 February and no such legislation has been put in place. As the Foreign Secretary meets her counterpart in Moscow, media reports suggest that the plan has fallen through. The House rises today, leaving no parliamentary time for the Government to put the legislation in place until after the recess.

This raises very troubling questions about the risk that Russian action against Ukraine could take place without the necessary legal measures in place to allow Britain to respond. What is the reason for the delay? What reassurance can the Minister offer this House that without the legislation in place the Government could implement severe sanctions if they are needed?

Promises made to this House should be kept. Hon. Members deserve the opportunity to scrutinise and debate these measures, which need to be in place. I do not want these sanctions to join the long list of measures to counter Russian aggression that have been ignored or delayed, such as the economic crime Bill, the reform of Companies House, the register of overseas entities Bill, the foreign agent registration law, and the new counter-espionage laws—the list goes on. With 130,000 troops threatening Ukraine, the Opposition stand ready to work with the Government in the national interest to get the appropriate measures in place. We can only do so if the Government keep their promise to bring forth this sanctions legislation—where is it?

[James Cleverly]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s unanimity of voice with regard to his opposition to Russia’s aggressive actions on the border of Ukraine. He is absolutely right that in times of high tension like this it is incredibly important that our allies and others understand that there really is unanimity of purpose across the House, and I thank him for that.

As I said in my statement, I have signed the legislation that we intend to lay in Parliament to come into force this afternoon. As I have said, the Foreign Secretary is pursuing the diplomatic pressure face to face with Russia. The Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, senior officials and I have regular interactions with our friends and allies both in Europe and across the Atlantic, and I can assure the House that they regularly express gratitude for the robustness of the UK’s approach. We will continue to pursue a diplomatic track, but the Foreign Secretary is making it clear to the Russians as we speak that if they miss the opportunity to de-escalate, there will be repercussions.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I welcome the news that my right hon. Friend is proceeding with the long-awaited additional sanctions, and I look forward to the statutory instrument coming to the House as soon as possible. What does my right hon. Friend believe is the position in relation to the Minsk II agreements, and what has been Her Majesty’s Government’s reaction to the proposals made by President Macron? Does my right hon. Friend agree that they could in fact make the situation more perilous for Ukraine?

[James Cleverly]

We have regularly called on Russia to abide by the commitments to which it has previously voluntarily subscribed, and there is no justification for the aggressive posture that it is now displaying on the borders of Ukraine. We and France, as well as other members of NATO, speak regularly; indeed, just yesterday I was on a multilateral call with French representatives. We are co-ordinating our approach and our language and ensuring that we understand and calibrate our actions in concert, and I assure my hon. Friend and the whole House that that will continue to be our approach on this very serious issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Owen Thomson.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I echo much of what was said by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I find this situation frustrating in many ways. Obviously we all want to do everything we can to counter Russian aggression, and we all want to be doing what we can to support legislation that would make that possible. But the action taken today of laying such legislation without our being given any opportunity for scrutiny or debate, or even knowing what it can achieve, makes it very difficult for us to help the Government and to approach this constructively, which is what we want to do. I must be brutally honest and say that it is a challenging task to come up with a series of questions about legislation that we have not yet seen, although we all want see that legislation work.

Can the Minister assure us that whatever the legislation does include, it will enable actions to be taken to tackle the improper use of, for instance, Scottish limited partnerships—colleagues of mine have been calling for that for years—and the multitude of other avenues through which Russian money is being used to influence and change attitudes, as well as the cyber-attacks that are carried out across these islands and in other European countries? Without seeing the legislation, it is difficult for our support to be as full as we might have wanted it to be.

[James Cleverly]

I completely understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. Our actions are closely co-ordinated and calibrated with the actions of our international partners. The UK has made it clear, as indeed have our friends and allies internationally, that if Russia were to pursue further aggressive actions in Ukraine, that would come at a huge cost. Of course, as with all conflicts, there would be a human cost—there would be casualties and fatalities both on the Russian side and, inevitably, in Ukraine—and we are desperately seeking to avoid that. However, if Russia does not heed our call to de-escalate, there will be meaningful sanctions in response. There will be costs. As I have said, throughout all this we are co-ordinating very closely with our international allies, and ensuring that our response is in place should Russia not heed our calls to de-escalate.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has been quoted as saying that we are at the “most dangerous moment” in the next few days. I do not expect a detailed answer to my question but, to bring home the devastating consequences should military aggression occur and to bring home that we will not tolerate this increased military aggression against the sovereign nation of Ukraine, will we consider taking cyber-measures against Russia, not necessarily after an invasion but now?

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend will be unsurprised that I am not willing to speculate on the nature or scope of the response of the Government or our allies, but Russia should understand that, if it were to attack or present further aggression towards Ukraine, there would be a meaningful response not just from the UK but from our international allies. I will not speculate further at this time.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Minister knows full well that every single Member of this House stands foursquare with the Government alongside the people of Ukraine. We want to guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine. However, the Foreign Secretary told us that the legislation would be in place by 10 February, which is important because of the recess. We were also told that it would be an affirmative measure, which means that it would not come into force unless the House has voted for it.

The Minister is wrong to say that it will just happen this afternoon. It is completely autocratic for the Government to publish legislation without any opportunity for anybody to scrutinise it. Frankly, they have just been lazy. We are Johnny-come-latelies when it comes to sanctions in this area. When will we have a debate on the Floor of the House on the measure so that we can make sure the whole House sends the same message to Russia? At the moment, it just looks as if the Government are not governing anymore.

[James Cleverly]

I understand the frustration that the hon. Gentleman and others have expressed, I truly do. Our actions have been, at all stages, calibrated to deter Russian aggression and to act in concert and collaboration with our international partners. I appreciate that this House has complete unanimity of purpose in its desire to dissuade Russia from aggressive actions towards Ukraine. We are moving at pace to ensure, where possible, that sanctions regimes are in place ahead of this. We will continue to take actions that dissuade Russian aggression towards Ukraine, and we will always do so in close co-ordination and co-operation with our international allies.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

What happens in Ukraine, and indeed what happens in eastern Europe, matters. It matters to this House and it matters to our country’s interests. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if global Britain means anything, it must mean that we stand up for freedom, democracy and the rule of law?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I recently returned from a trip to Washington where, across the political divide, the UK’s actions in dissuading Russian aggression have been recognised, and gratitude was expressed to me. He is right that freedom, democracy and the rule of law are foundation stone principles that we will defend. We have already given support to Ukraine, including defensive weapon systems, to help it protect itself against further Russian aggression. The expanded sanctions package is part of that message of deterrence so that Russia understands there will be repercussions if it were to pursue further aggressive actions towards Ukraine.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Despite the Russia report, despite the Opposition’s calls and despite the Government’s promises, the UK remains a destination for Russian dirty money and influence. The Minister says that the promised sanctions legislation will be in place this afternoon, although it has not been published, we are rising for recess and there is no time for a debate. Will he explain to me how we will be able to demonstrate that, as he says, sanctions will be put in place should there be any incursion or action by Russia? That is of the utmost importance to our national security and our standing.

[James Cleverly]

We have worked to ensure that this extension of the scope of potential sanctions is effective and that it displays a meaningful deterrent message to Russia. We are working to bring the measures into force this afternoon, so that they are in place as soon as practically possible. The message that I get back from the international community is that it massively values the UK’s very firm response on this issue. That is the message I received on my recent trip to Washington. It is the message I receive on calls with international partners, and we will continue to be very robust in our actions to dissuade Russian aggressio‘n.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

I welcome the concerted diplomatic pressure that we are putting on Russia, with the Foreign Secretary there today, the Defence Secretary there tomorrow and the Prime Minister in Warsaw today. I also welcome the fact that we are laying this statutory instrument this afternoon. What is important with sanctions is not only that we have the legislation, but our willingness to use the sanctions, and quickly. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that we are prepared to use these sanctions, and that we will do so with alacrity if needed?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The message should be heard loud and clear, and I have no doubt that as we speak my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is doing that on her trip to Moscow. This extended sanctions package is meaningful. If Russia was to pursue its aggressive posture towards Ukraine, there would be serious consequences, and this extension of the scope of our sanctions is absolutely part of that.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The US, far from what the Minister has just said, is said to be expressing exasperation at the failure of the Government to take tough action against the flow of Russian money. On top of that, it has taken two years for the Government to take any action on the recommendations of the Russia report. This is damaging our international standing. Whatever is happening this afternoon in terms of sanctions, can he give us an undertaking that we will be tackling that Russian money and ensuring that it cannot flow?

[James Cleverly]

A number of Members speak with seeming great authority on the tone or the thinking of our allies. I have just returned from Washington, where I have spoken with elected Members and senior officials in the White House, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that the United States recognises the robust position that the UK is taking through the extension of our sanctions regime and that we will ensure, if Russia pursues an aggressive posture, that there are consequences that are meaningful.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

It seems to me that for the first time in my adult life, it is our values—the values of this country and the values of the west—that are being challenged in a meaningful way in Russia and, I am sorry to say, elsewhere in the world. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is in that light that we should see what is happening on the borders of Ukraine, and it is also in that light that we should respond in terms of sanctions?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are incredibly important principles at stake here, and the UK and our international friends and allies are making a statement to Russia in clear and unambiguous terms that we expect it to abide by the commitments that it has previously made to respect the territorial integrity of another sovereign state and to de-escalate and step back from the aggressive posture that it has taken. If it does not, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is making clear that there will be repercussions.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The UK is the destination of choice for Russian criminals and kleptocrats who then use their wealth to silence journalists and avoid scrutiny, including by launching endless oppressive lawsuits. Why should we have any confidence that the Minister’s Government and party, which have done nothing to counter that—indeed, the issue has grown year on year—will suddenly impose meaningful sanctions? The US said that there was “dismay and frustration” at the failure to tackle it.

[James Cleverly]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments that I have already made. I have just returned from Washington and I assure the House that the UK has been recognised and thanked for the robust position that it has taken, is taking and has signalled that it is willing to take.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to having signed the legislation and I look forward to seeing it this afternoon. That is part of the Government’s clear and continuous message to Russia that any further incursion into Ukraine would be a huge strategic error. NATO must be united in calling for a diplomatic way forward, so can he confirm that the UK Government have called for NATO partners to be as vocal as the United Kingdom has been in delivering that message to the Kremlin and, further, to match our defence spending commitments?

[James Cleverly]

Last month, I attended the NATO Russia council on behalf of the United Kingdom, and the unanimity of voice with which the NATO allies condemned the aggressive posture that Russia has taken towards Ukraine was striking. Defence spending is a broader point of discussion. We are incredibly proud of the fact that the UK maintains that 2% or more on defence spending. We will ensure that we are as passionate in our diplomatic attempts as we are in our passion to support our friends and allies in NATO, including the eastern NATO allies that have borders with Russia.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

If, God forbid, Vladimir Putin is watching the parliamentary channel at the moment, does the Minister think that he will get the sense that the Government and the House are acting urgently? I am not getting that clearly. There is an all-party desire to reach a peaceful solution to the crisis and for us to be seen to act as firmly as possible on sanctions. I ask him to ask someone in No. 10 or elsewhere to give a sense of urgency to it. All parties support it, so the Government should get on with it.

[James Cleverly]

The feedback that I get, not necessarily from the Opposition but certainly from the international community, is that it recognises and is grateful for the posture that the UK has taken with regard to Russia’s accumulation of troops on the Ukrainian border. That is the message that I have been getting loud and clear from across the international community.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does the Minister understand that after years of delay, yet again the Government’s rhetoric on the issue does not seem to match their actions on Russian money in this country? The Foreign Secretary is in Russia today, supposedly putting a very strong message to the Kremlin, and the inaction and inability to bring forward legislation to this place so that we can scrutinise it undermines that message.

[James Cleverly]

I disagree with the hon. Lady’s assessment of the situation, because in conversation after conversation that I have had, in the United States and with other friends and allies across the world, they recognise the work that the UK is doing and are grateful for it. On the expansion of the scope of potential sanctions against Russia, we are demonstrating to the Russians that we are serious in our actions as well.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Russian troops have been massing on the border for months. Meanwhile, Putin and his friends have been behaving like international gangsters and throwing their weight around for years. Why leave it until now? Why draft a measure and, hopefully—we have not seen it yet—put it before the House just a few hours before the recess, if we are lucky? From what the Minister is saying, however, because he has not really answered the question, it sounds more and more like it will come into force after the recess. In the meantime, there could be an asset flight and Russian troops going into Ukraine.

[James Cleverly]

As I said, the actions that we are taking are intended to come into force this afternoon. Our posture towards Russia has been consistent. We have made it clear for some time—as the Foreign Secretary did on 31 January—that the UK intends to increase the scope of our sanctions regime so that we can take meaningful action, in co-ordination and concert with international partners. That is intended to send a clear message to Russia that its aggressive posture is unacceptable, that it needs to de-escalate and that, if it were to pursue aggressive actions against Ukraine, there would be meaningful consequences.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I really do not understand why this is all so last-minute. Is the Minister comfortable with his Government’s approach of ignoring the recommendations of the Russia report? It is important to note that the Intelligence and Security Committee—a cross-party Committee of both Houses of Parliament—made clear recommendations after taking a lot of evidence and scrutinising the issue of Russian influence on this country. Why have those recommendations not been taken up by his Government?

[James Cleverly]

As I have said a number of times, in my interactions with our friends and allies both on my recent trip to the United States of America when I represented the UK at the NATO-Russia Council and on international calls, the UK’s firm posture towards Russia has been recognised, and our international partners are grateful for it. To ensure that our sanctions regime and any potential sanctions that we impose are effective, co-ordination with our international partners is incredibly important. I am intensely proud of the position that the UK has taken in support of Ukraine, in support of the international rules-based order and in support of our friends and allies around the world. The UK will continue to be at the forefront of attempts to de-escalate the situation and support the Ukrainian people.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. Has he had communications with other NATO leaders regarding Macron’s lone-wolf approach to Putin and ensuing comments that demonstrate a shift from standing NATO policy towards reaction to potential attack? Will he reaffirm the Government’s commitment to NATO’s approach against Russian aggression?

[James Cleverly]

The UK remains a committed member of NATO, and I assure the hon. Member and the House that the UK, France, the United States of America and other members of the Quint speak regularly. My most recent conversation with international partners was yesterday, when we had a detailed debrief of President Macron’s talks with Vladimir Putin. We work in close co-ordination with international partners, and I assure him that that close co-ordination, whether through sanctions or our diplomatic efforts, will continue.

Government Contracts: Randox Laboratories

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

11:03

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if he will make a statement on the process for awarding Government contracts to Randox Laboratories Ltd, following the release of documents in response to the Humble Address of 17 November 2021.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)]

In response to the greatest public health emergency that we have faced for a generation, the Government engaged with many businesses—big and small—as part of an unprecedented national effort. On 3 February, we responded to the Humble Address and laid the documents before the House. We are committed to transparency and helping the House perform its valuable scrutiny, and the Department dedicated significant resources to reviewing about 11,000 records to identify the 35 relevant documents. They show how we took every possible step to build the huge infrastructure for testing that we now have in this country—the biggest testing programme in Europe. The programme has done so much to stop the spread of this deadly virus and given us all hope that we can learn to live with covid-19.

Randox has been globally recognised in the diagnostics industry for nearly 40 years and even as early as March 2020 had lab-based PCR testing capacity for covid-19. Robust rules and processes are in place to ensure that all contracts are awarded in line with procurement regulations and transparency guidelines, and that any potential conflicts of interest with respect to commercial matters are appropriately managed. Direct awards, such as in this case, are permitted by public contract regulations for reasons of extreme urgency brought about by unforeseeable events. I am sure that no hon. Member would deny that the situation was one of extreme urgency.

As the House would expect, Ministers of course have a role in approving contracts, but their approval relies on the impartial evaluation conducted by civil servants. I reinforce to hon. Members that Ministers are not involved in the assessment and evaluation process for contracts, and that the documents given to the House show no evidence that any of those principles have been breached. Instead, they plainly show that we did everything in our power to keep this country safe at a time of crisis, as the British people would expect.

[Anneliese Dodds]

The Randox files published last week, later than the Government said they would be—that was not acknowledged by the Minister—paint a picture of a Conservative Government who are simply unfit for office. That Conservative Government played fast and loose with public money. They handed Randox a £133 million contract without competition. The Minister talked about every possible step being taken in testing infrastructure, but let us remember what happened. Randox tried to requisition equipment from universities that, because of the files that were released, we now know had to be stopped. Vital tests in care homes were voided, and 750,000 tests were recalled. The Government’s response was to hand it a second contract worth £350 million, again without competition.

We now know that both the civil service chief operating officer and the Minister, Lord Agnew, sounded a warning alarm. That Minister said that the Department was paying “dramatically over the odds” for Randox’s services, but the Government ploughed on. Why was he ignored, and did the Department do what he asked, and introduce a competitive tender process by March 2021? There does not seem to have been the operation of robust rules that the Minister referred to, or an impartial evaluation. Was that put into place or not?

Secondly, there are still no minutes of that crucial meeting on 9 April, just a rough draft email sent seven months later. Two years on, the Department cannot even explain who was there. We now know that Health Ministers held another four meetings that were never declared in the Register. How many more secret meetings were there?

That brings us to Owen Paterson who, as we now know from these papers, is called “O-Patz”—really, Mr Speaker, is there any clearer sign that we are in the twilight days of this Government? The files show that this former MP, a paid advocate for Randox, was arranging meetings with the Health Secretary in the Division Lobby, a place to which only MPs have access, and where it is impossible for civil servants to join them—hardly the appropriate management of commercial interests that the Minister referred to. Will she explain what was agreed in those discussions, and will she correct her Department’s claim that there is no evidence of any breach of the rules?

[Maggie Throup]

I make no apologies for how we as a country rose to the challenge that we faced in early 2020. I think that sometimes we forget what this country—indeed, the world—was going through. We must remember those days, and I am sure that hon. Members across the House will agree that what we have put in place since will ensure that we can cope far better in the future. We do need to learn lessons, and we will learn lessons.

However, one of the most important lessons that I take from when we worked together is that we can do incredible things. The NHS has been phenomenal, our hospitals have been phenomenal, and local government has been phenomenal, as has the private sector. We have all worked together and we have really worked hard, and that is why we can now see that—with the vaccine programme as well, along with the therapeutics and antivirals—we are combating this virus. We could not have come this far without everybody working together, and this country’s testing structure has been crucial in helping us to get through this time. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody who has been involved in this huge effort both at testing sites and working in the lab, and everybody who has come forward to get tested to keep their loved ones safe.

I would like to respond to some of the questions posed by the hon. Lady. My Department did inform you, Mr Speaker, that we were unable to meet our initial deadline for responding to the Humble Address. That was mainly due to the surge of omicron at that time, and the way that my Department had to respond to ensure that we kept our citizens safe from that variant surge.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of the Randox kits that were recalled in the summer of 2020. It was on 15 July that year that NHS Test and Trace was notified that some kits produced by Randox laboratories may not have met the required standard for coronavirus testing. As a precautionary measure, while this was investigated further, NHS Test and Trace paused the use of these Randox test kits with immediate effect. It was on 7 August that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency instructed Randox to recall the Randox covid-19 home testing kits with a specific catalogue number. That decision was taken as a precautionary measure to prevent any further use of these Randox tests. The risk to safety was low, and test results from Randox kits were not affected. An independent assessment in June 2020 had placed Randox ahead of other laboratories, and Randox was meeting its delivery targets by September 2020. We were very precautionary in the measures we put in place to ensure that we were protecting everybody at that time.

I did note the point of order that the hon Lady made this week about the meeting on 9 April 2020, which she has raised again today. The note was taken during the meeting, and it was saved in a draft folder of the private secretary who took the note. When the Department received a freedom of information request for the minute of the meeting, the private secretary found the minute and shared it. For clarity, “note” and “minute” mean an official record of a meeting; the words mean the same from that point of view.

I reiterate that there are robust rules and processes in place that ensure that contracts are awarded in accordance with the public procurement regulations of 2015, and that Ministers are not involved in the assessment and evaluation process for contracts at all. That is a really important principle that the Government work on now, and have worked on probably for decades, and that principle will never be broken.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

You will remember, Mr Speaker, as the right hon. Member for Chorley, and every Member in this House will remember, the enormous pressure we were all put under, barely two years ago, to try to find businesses and organisations that could quickly produce much-needed equipment and services to assist the people of our country during an unprecedented global pandemic. Can I put on record my appreciation of the enormous work that the Government did, and does the Minister agree with me that, had it not been for their work, we would not have been able to protect and save the lives of so many people in our country?

[Maggie Throup]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s recognition, remembering where we were barely two years ago, of how we have moved on since then. We have put in place a test and trace programme that is renowned across Europe and across the world, and we have a world-leading vaccination programme as well as the amazing work done on therapeutics and antivirals. Coming together in the national effort has been vital, which is why I make no apologies for my Department’s looking at every opportunity to ensure that everybody could get tested who needed to be tested, that everybody could be jabbed who needed to be jabbed, and that the right therapeutics were in place to keep people safe.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

These secret communications reveal that Paterson corresponded directly with the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), in January 2020 about the services that Randox could provide. Then, without competition, Government contracts were issued to provide Randox with equipment if it struggled to get it, offering loans of equipment that were drafted on the same day as the emails were exchanged. Nice work if you can get it, eh? In the exchanges, Paterson repeatedly noted that he was a paid consultant to Randox, but the Government seemingly overlooked that fact for months until The Guardian revealed he had lobbied for Randox to get the contracts. Internally, Paterson then asked the Health Minister to kill the story once and for all. Can the Minister explain to me how that is not institutional corruption? Nobody trusts this Government. They are rule breakers and system cheaters. Does this whole case with Randox not just prove that the Government are interested only in helping their friends?

[Maggie Throup]

Once again, I make no apologies for the Department working to look at every opportunity to make sure that we had the right mechanisms in place to keep our country safe. As I said earlier, Randox was a recognised company in the diagnostic industry. The hon. Gentleman talks about how he perceives the Department working. The fact is that we have released all the documents. As I said earlier, the 11,000 documents were looked at to identify what was relevant. We have been very open in putting that information in the House of Commons Library and responding to the Humble Address.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The documents seem to show that there was a meeting with the former Member for North Shropshire and the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in the Division Lobby. Will the Minister respond to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds)? Did that meeting take place?

[Maggie Throup]

The evidence has been put in the Library and the information is there. I want to make it clear that my Department went through as much evidence as it could. As I said earlier, we were at the start of a pandemic; nobody had ever seen anything like it before. I make no apologies for making sure that we had everything in place to keep the country safe.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Oh dear; I almost do not know where to start. I have to be very careful, because the Standards Committee may well want to return to some of these issues and I will not stray into that territory. There is no rule that says that a Minister cannot be inappropriately lobbied, but there are rules saying that Members are not allowed to engage in paid advocacy. We may need to look at the rules to make sure there is a better way of dealing with this issue. I am not making any allegations about the Health Secretary or anybody else. I just wonder: when the Minister voted to protect Owen Paterson on 3 November, did she know about all of this or not?

[Maggie Throup]

I respect the hon. Gentleman and I look forward to the outcome of the work of his Committee. The code of conduct for MPs rightly remains a matter for Parliament. Today, we are talking about the Humble Address that my Department responded to, quite rightly. There are lessons that can be learned. We are now looking at making sure we have mechanisms in place for the future. Standards are in place in the House and it is quite right that hon. Members meet those standards. I look forward to the outcome of your Committee’s work to make sure we have a rounded approach and that the situation with Mr Paterson does not happen again.

[Mr Speaker]

It is Mr Bryant’s Committee, rather than mine.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

It really is quite remarkable: what the Minister has outlined in her response is what should have happened during the course of the pandemic and what has been proven not to have happened. Instead, the situation has been epitomised by Tory donors receiving billions of pounds in contracts, Ministers losing mobile phones when their Department and the law have tried to find out what has gone on, and decent companies with great experience in this field—I am thinking of Arco up in the north-east—being left with next to nothing. How can the Minister stand there and defend the indefensible?

[Maggie Throup]

As I said, we follow the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, and in procuring goods and services we are committed to fair and reasonable timetables and procedures, and encourage open competition wherever possible. However, we were in the middle of a pandemic.

Let me go through the process in a bit more detail. Awarding bodies use three main procurement routes in awarding contracts. First, there are direct awards without competition using emergency procurement rules, and I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that we were in an emergency situation. Secondly, there are direct awards using variations to existing contracts. The third route is awards from framework agreements—both direct awards and mini competitions—where suppliers have previously undergone a competitive process to be appointed to the framework. As we move out of the pandemic, we will obviously get back to business as usual and use these other mechanisms.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am sure that I am not the only one in the House who is finding this utterly excruciating. The Minister cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and say in one breath that she makes no apology and in the next breath say that the Government are going to learn lessons. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) asked her a simple and direct question about the meeting on 5 February. Did it happen—yes or no?

[Maggie Throup]

The evidence that we produced in response to the Humble Address has been laid in the Library.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

The chief operating officer of the civil service requested the restoration of competitive tendering by March 2021. Will the Minister confirm that that did not happen, tell us how many more contracts were issued without tender after that date, and explain why the emergency procurement rules are still in use almost a year after the deadline?

[Maggie Throup]

There is a lot of detail in that question. If I may, I will write to the hon. Lady with answers.

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I am finding this really rather difficult, for the same reasons as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). Has the Minister actually read what has been laid in the Library? If she has, will she enlighten us as to what it says about the meeting in the Lobby?

[Maggie Throup]

I reassure the House that I did read the documents before they were laid in the Library.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Randox cashed in on covid contracts; its profits jumped from £12 million to £50 million, and as the money rolled in the company was re-registered in the Isle of Man. Does the Minister think that tax on UK covid contracts should be paid in the UK?

[Maggie Throup]

That is really for the Treasury to look at, but I come back again to the fact that Randox was an established company in diagnostic testing and that at the time we looked at which businesses could deliver our testing requirements. I am delighted that since then we have built up our own additional testing structure; in fact, later today I will be visiting the Rosalind Franklin Laboratory in Leamington Spa to see the amazing testing work that we have set up there under the UK Health Security Agency.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

There were four meetings between Health Ministers and Randox that were not registered. Does the Minister accept that, if she had taken part in unregistered meetings of that kind, she would have breached the ministerial code?

[Maggie Throup]

I register all my meetings, as I should do.

[Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

This is agonising and frankly embarrassing. The Minister has been sent here to state repeatedly that we were in an emergency situation and a global pandemic, and she makes no apology. Does this scandal not just further prove that this Government are interested only in helping their friends to get richer?

[Maggie Throup]

I reiterate what I said earlier: we have robust rules and processes in place to ensure that contracts are awarded in accordance with the Public Procurement Regulations 2015, which I have also outlined in further detail. Ministers are not involved in the assessment and evaluation process for contracts.

Business of the House

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the new Leader of the House, Mark Spencer.

11:26

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Will the new Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)]

I would be delighted.

Monday 21 February—Remaining stages of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 22 February—Remaining stages of the Charities Bill [Lords], followed by remaining stages of the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 23 February—Opposition day (13th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.

Thursday 24 February—Debate on a motion on the UK’s relationship with Russia and China, followed by general debate on the matter of the UK Government recognition of the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 25 February—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 28 February will include:

Monday 28 February—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

If you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, while I am on my feet I will briefly pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), my predecessor as Leader of the House and Lord President of the Council. During his time in post, he was instrumental in guiding parliamentary business through the pandemic. It may come as some surprise to colleagues that he was the leading advocate for the digital revolution in Parliament and a pioneer of the hybrid proceedings, and, to be fair, he ensured that the House and its Committees were able to sit throughout the pandemic.

My right hon. Friend also oversaw the Government’s delivery of the legislative programme over the past two and a half years, including ensuring that all necessary legislation was in place ahead of our departure from the European Union. He took his role extremely seriously; he was an ardent champion of Back Benchers, not least ensuring that all hon. Members who brought up issues at business questions had those raised with the relevant Secretaries of State. Those are huge strides that I will have to step into. I have huge respect for my predecessor and I hope I can fill his shoes. I have an enormous amount of respect for him and I think of him as a true friend.

My door will always be open to anyone who wants to speak to me. I especially hope that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) will come through that door, and that we can have a positive relationship in the best interests of the House and its Members. I can assure the House that I will look to carry on my predecessor’s commitment to ensuring that those who work on the estate are treated with dignity and respect. I look forward to working with the House of Commons Commission, where I will look to build on recent work to ensure the efficient and effective running of the House for the sake of its Members and all who work here.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I warmly welcome the new Leader of the House to his post. I thank him for the forthcoming business and look forward to working with him. Also in my line of sight is the new Government Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), and I welcome him to his place as well.

I thank the previous Leader of the House for our time working together. I note that he is taking up his new role as the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency. I was interested to find out more about that role, so I had a look on the ministerial webpage, only to find—certainly when I last looked, and I had been refreshing the screen all morning—that there seemed to be no responsibilities listed. I know from experience that that might suit him, so I wish him well.

This is Race Equality Week. Hate crime is rising in Britain. Race is now a factor in more than seven out of 10 hate crimes recorded in England. Can the Leader of the House explain what the Government are doing to tackle this? Religious hate crime is also rising, particularly against British Muslims, so can the right hon. Gentleman also demonstrate his personal commitment to tackling that by scheduling in Government time a debate on Islamophobia?

There are 14,000 cases of fraud every day and millions of cases of fraud every year. Each day, thousands of people are scammed out of hard-earned savings. Yet we have a Business Secretary who thinks fraud is not a real crime. Perhaps that is why the Chancellor is happy to write off £4.3 billion of fraudulent loans.

Meanwhile, we have a Prime Minister who does not seem to understand his own Government’s record on tackling crime, claiming last week that they have been “cutting crime by 14%,” when that does not seem to be quite the case. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that there is actually

“a 14% increase in total crime, driven by a 47% increase in fraud and computer misuse.”

This causes misery, as well as financial ruin, for many people. It seems to me that this indicates a Government that are both soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Prime Minister to come here and correct that record about crime statistics?

Families up and down the country are facing a cost of living crisis, with energy bills set to rise by more than £700 per year per household. Meanwhile, oil and gas producers are making over £700 profit per second. Instead of helping working families, this Government are choosing to load them up with debt. The Government’s forced loan—the so-called discount—means that households will actually end up forking out an extra £19 billion on their bills next year. Meanwhile, the Chancellor is pretending that he is giving us a discount. Given that the Government appear to be keen on “Buy now, pay later” schemes, would the Leader of the House find time for a debate on this?

Labour’s plan would keep bills low enough, through a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas profits, and all households getting £200 off their bills, with an extra £400 for those who need it most. Can the Leader of the House explain why the Government are not backing a windfall tax that would help fund a cut in VAT on energy bills and ease the burden on working people?

I asked the previous Leader of the House several times for the online harms Bill. We have had a series of updates, but no actual legislation. Last year the Prime Minister said the Bill would have completed all stages by Christmas, then it was just Second Reading, and then there was a vague commitment that it would happen at some point during the Session. The pre-legislative scrutiny Committee has reported and we have had a debate, but nothing is forthcoming on the business. Can the new Leader of the House enlighten us about the location of the Bill?

Finally, as I have to say each week—unfortunately, nothing seems to change—this Government are out of touch, out of ideas and out of control. A decade of dither, their delay and their incompetence has left working people paying the price.

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words about my predecessor. He has gone off to give us those Brexit dividends and find the benefits of Brexit. They are easy to find, to be honest, and I think he will be quite successful. Instead of criticising and being negative about Brexit, it is time the Labour party embraced Brexit, understood that the British people voted for Brexit and got on the bandwagon with us. Come and give us the Brexit dream, and let us go together, support the previous Leader of the House and move forward.

The hon. Lady mentioned race crime. I think everybody in the House will recognise that race crime is a terrible offence, and we should all do our part in condemning anyone who is involved in racial crimes. I wholly accept the point that she makes. I would be delighted to work together, in any way we can—we have a responsibility not only as Members of Parliament, but as citizens, to call out racial hatred whenever we see it in all its forms.

Turning to fraud, everybody will recognise what a terrible crime fraud is. As Members of Parliament, we can help. There are very evil people out there who are trying to steal people’s savings and attack our constituents, but we can help by highlighting some of those scams and by working to bring down not only fraud, but all crime. The Government’s record on crime is actually pretty good. If we look particularly at the statistics on violent crime and burglary, we see that the number of those crimes in our constituencies is coming down.

The hon. Lady mentioned the Prime Minister coming to make a statement. I say gently to her that if we look at knife crime in the city of London, we see that when the Prime Minister was the Mayor of London, he tackled knife crime and it came down. Under the current Labour Mayor, those statistics have gone in the wrong direction. She should support the Government and support our ambitions to recruit more police officers, on which we are delivering, and together we can tackle crime.

Energy costs are clearly a very big issue for our constituents. The Government have done an awful lot to try to help with the pain of global energy costs. We have put £9.1 billion into the energy bill rebate scheme, with a £200 discount on bills this autumn. The Government are taking a number of steps. I am not saying that there is not more that we can do, and I understand the squeeze on people, on hard-working families, but the best way out of poverty is through hard work, good jobs and good careers. That is what the Government are delivering. I say to the hon. Lady: get behind the Government and support us as we do that, because reducing the tax burden on the lowest-paid and helping out those on universal credit is what we are delivering.

Finally, the hon. Lady mentioned the online harms Bill. The Bill has been through pre-legislative scrutiny and that report has been received. I am sure that the House will be updated in the usual way when I announce business in future. At this moment in time, she will just have to chill her beans, but it is coming at some point.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

We are expecting a written ministerial statement today on the one piece of covid legislation that we do not yet know a date for revocation—namely, the provision of early abortion pills through the post without face-to-face consultation. Depending on what that statement says, will the Leader of the House consider making time available in the forthcoming business for an oral statement, so that those of us who are appalled by the practice can make the case for a swift return to the status quo ante?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. Of course, the Government take that very seriously, and I understand the strength of feeling on these issues—[Interruption.] I accept that—I understand the strength of feeling on both sides of the argument and both sides of the House. The Department for Health and Social Care will look at that and I am sure that it will update the House on any decisions before they are made.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Well, look who we have now—I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member on his new role and note that he is now my sixth Leader of the House in my short tenure here as shadow Leader of the House on the Scottish National party Benches. I have learned a few things about being Leader of the House over the course of the years. Usually, the position is reserved for one of two categories: those on the way down or those who are difficult to place. I will leave him to decide which of these categories he falls into.

Although the right hon. Member could not possibly remain as Chief Whip after blackmailgate and after being the initiator of all the current difficulties by trying to lead recalcitrant and reluctant Back Benchers over the top to defend the indefensible by trying to save his pal, Owen Paterson, the fact that he has been made Leader of the House is almost unbelievable. It is like moving Dracula from Minister for blood supply to Minister for blood transfusions. But we wish him well. He must not just know where the bodies are buried; he is also brushing off the dirt on his grubby overalls.

It is also right that we pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). How we will all miss his affectatious patronisation. At least one good thing has come out of the oxymoron of his new job: one person has been gainfully employed by the Government’s disastrous Brexit.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Hopefully we might get on to the business. This is very funny, but come on.

[Pete Wishart]

Can we have a debate about the lorry park that is now the county of Kent? I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is walking up and down the queue saying, “Hark! The sunlit uplands are just around the corner.”

There is one thing that the new Leader of the House could do to show that he is different in this job, and that is to resolve the case of my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan). She has had to come down here just to vote, against her doctors’ advice, travelling 800 miles to put a pass against a card reader. It is madness. Not only is that bad for her, but it is bad for this House. It makes us look callous, it makes us look indifferent and it makes us look heartless. Can the Leader of the House show that he is not just the Mogg without the expensive classical education, and get this resolved for Members who are sick or recovering from illness?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm words about my predecessor, who did warn me that the hon. Gentleman was quite an angry man. Every week he turns up here in a very angry state, and I am concerned about that. When I meet him outside he seems to be very calm, but as he crosses the line he seems to have this huge anger. It is my personal mission to try to soothe him. I am the Sudocrem to his nappy rash. We will work together and I will calm him as we move forward.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned transport, and there will be an opportunity for him to question the Secretary of State for Transport in early March. He also mentioned the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan). I met her yesterday—she came to my office—and I fully understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises, and her predicament. We await the Procedure Committee report on how we can assist and support colleagues who find themselves in those circumstances, but these are very delicate matters that do need consideration. My door is genuinely open to a conversation about how we can try to solve that for the benefit of the whole House. That is a conversation that I am happy to take forward with him in the future.

[Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

May I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend on his appointment as Leader of the House? The Secretary of State for Transport recently announced that there would be a competition to find a new headquarters for Great British Railways. My constituency of North West Cambridgeshire comprises the southern half of the city of Peterborough, and I am in no doubt that it would be the ideal location for a new headquarters. Will my right hon. Friend kindly provide time in the House for a debate in which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) could put forward the case as to why the city of Peterborough should be the location of the new headquarters for Great British Railways?

[Mark Spencer]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituents, for Cambridgeshire and for Peterborough. I understand that the Great British Railways transition team is running the competition, and I wish him every success in his bid. I also note that the Government are embarking on the biggest investment in our railway infrastructure, with £96 billion through the integrated rail plan.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Ian Mearns.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I welcome the Leader of the House to his place and to his role as Secretary of State for the application of Sudocrem.

He will have picked this up from his predecessor, but I remind him that the Backbench Business Committee already has a number of date-sensitive applications on the stocks, particularly for the first two weeks in March, with Welsh affairs and St David’s Day in the first week of March and International Women’s Day in the second week. We are anticipating a couple of days to debate departmental spending through estimates day debates, and applications for those debate slots must be made to the Backbench Business Committee by the deadline of 2.30 pm on Friday 25 February. We understand that supplementary estimates will be published in the last week of February.

I met the new president and the new general secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers yesterday, and they wanted me to raise an issue in National Apprenticeship Week. I am sure the Leader of the House is aware that this is National Apprenticeship Week, which is a cause for celebration, but seafarer training policies in the maritime 2050 strategy and in mechanisms such as the tonnage tax are just not working to recruit and train UK ratings. Far too many shipowners bring in crew from overseas on low pay, sometimes with dreadful conditions of service, rather than training young people in our port towns and cities. Can we have a statement on what urgent action will be taken, including through the tonnage tax, to boost rating apprenticeships across the UK?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his work as Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee. I encourage all colleagues to engage with the Committee, which is a great opportunity for them to raise any topic they like on the Floor of the House. His chairing of the Committee is exemplary. Of course, I will work with him to try to ensure those time-sensitive debates happen at a time of his choosing.

The Government have a very proud record on getting young people into apprenticeships, on which we can still do more. We need to reflect on how our young people get from school into careers. University is not the route for every young person, and an apprenticeship programme is a great opportunity for young people to get into the jobs market and to get a great career for themselves. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

Yesterday, in Oxfordshire, there was exciting news of a major breakthrough in our quest to develop nuclear fusion. The scientists at Culham have more than doubled the amount of fusion energy generated compared with previous tests, and Stroud and the south-west’s Severn Edge bid has been shortlisted for Berkeley and Oldbury to be the home of the first fusion energy prototype. I am biased, but we definitely have the best bid to deliver this source of low-carbon energy for the country. Will my right hon. Friend, with his brand new powers, grant a debate in Government time to discuss the UK’s scientific developments, particularly in fusion energy?

[Mark Spencer]

I have to confess that my knowledge of nuclear fusion is limited. My only experience is from “Spider-Man 2”, where it all seemed to go a little wrong. It says here that nuclear fusion has the potential to be a world-changing energy source, and I have no reason to doubt that. I recognise my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for investment in her constituency, and I sincerely hope it works.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Leader of the House to his position. I wonder whether I can seek his guidance. It appears that charities get VAT exemptions when they buy defibrillators, but community groups do not. How best can I bring this to the attention of the Treasury Bench so that the anomaly can be rectified?

[Mark Spencer]

This is a very important issue. I recognise that a lot of people on both sides of the House have done a lot of work to highlight the need for defibrillators—I have been contacted by the Oliver King Foundation about a tragic case. This would be a worthy debate to have either in Westminster Hall or as an Adjournment debate, and I know it would be very popular.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position. There is understandable public interest in the allegation of gatherings at Downing Street, but does he share my concern about how this subject has recently been taught at Welbeck Primary School in Nottingham? According to the school’s tweet about the lesson, children appear to have been taught allegations as fact—Mr Speaker, they also appear to have been taught that you have been biased—with no alternative view given. I have written to the Education Secretary to ask him to investigate whether the headteacher’s duty of impartiality under the Education Act 1996 has been breached in this case. In the meantime, might we have parliamentary time to debate the teaching of sensitive political subjects in schools so that teachers do not cross the line?

[Mark Spencer]

I know that you are quite capable of defending yourself, Mr Speaker, but any suggestion that you are biased should be robustly repudiated. My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Education on our democratic processes and establishments is an important part of how young people learn about how our democracy works, but the subject has to be taught with sensitivity and without political bias. Any suggestion that there is political bias is unfortunate.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The Leader of the House, whom I welcome to his place, will be aware that, this week, a Mauritian delegation set sail on a planned expedition to the Chagos islands with a number of expelled Chagossians on board. Members will be aware that, in 2019, the International Court of Justice ruled that continued British occupation of the archipelago was illegal. Given the injustices that this population has suffered, does the Leader of the House agree that there should be a debate in Government time on the Chagossians’ right to return, on progress in delivering the compensation package and on the future of that island chain?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will have the opportunity to question the Foreign Secretary at Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions on 8 March. This is an important issue. Matters of immigration are very sensitive and I encourage the hon. Lady to either write to the Foreign Secretary or challenge her during FCDO questions.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

London accounts for 13% of the UK’s population and 22% of its gross domestic product. The issue of how London is governed is important to the whole country. We used to have debates in Government time on London and its governance. Can we restore that situation, so that we can examine why Conservative Bromley is debt-free, while Labour Croydon is bankrupt and required an £120 million bail-out; and why the Labour Mayor increased his press office’s budget by 33%, while shipping the London Assembly, which, in statute, has a duty to scrutinise him, 8 miles down the river, out of the centre, in order to marginalise it? Are those not matters that we should be able to debate in the House?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question highlighting those issues. If I can facilitate such a debate, I will be delighted to, but of course there are other routes open to him: he might want a Westminster Hall debate; he can apply for an Adjournment debate; or he could even talk to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) about getting a Backbench Business debate.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I warmly congratulate the new Government Chief Whip. You may not know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that he and I have been friends for many years; he helped me run my campaign to be Speaker, which did not go very well, obviously. I hope that he has just as much success in his forthcoming campaigns. Of course, I also welcome the new Leader of the House. May I ask him about the statutory instrument on Russian sanctions that the Minister for Europe said would be laid before Parliament this afternoon? The whole House wants to help the Government introduce proper legislation, but we need proper scrutiny of it. As I understand it, the SI will go through the affirmative procedure, which means that it will not become law today, whatever the Foreign Secretary said two weeks ago; it needs the agreement of the House. We all want that to happen as soon as possible. Why did the Minister for Europe not announce today when that will happen? Why can it not happen on the Monday after next, when the House returns?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm words about the new Chief Whip. I, too, congratulate the Chief Whip on his appointment. He not only ran the hon. Gentleman’s campaign, but assisted the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) with her bid to become leader of the Conservative party, which was equally successful.

Turning to the statutory instrument on Russian sanctions that is being laid before Parliament, clearly this is a sensitive issue. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will keep the House informed on how the measures will be implemented and on what they are. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to debate the instrument. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will at some point update the House and the hon. Gentleman will then have the opportunity to question her.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Leader of the House to his place. I can see that business questions on Thursday will continue to be the highlight of the week, and I thank him for that. I pay tribute to the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). Thursday regulars will miss him, even though they might not admit to it. Members from across the House have certainly told me—

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)?

[Lucy Allan]

Yes, indeed. Members from across the House have told me how much they appreciate the diligence that my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset showed in following up on their questions, and in highlighting their local campaigns. He was ably supported by the wonderful Leader of the House team, who we see in the Box.

Today is the last day for Members to participate in the consultation on proposed changes to standards on the conduct of MPs. Members have expressed concerns that their names could be made public and their comments used against them if they were to submit them online. Can the Leader of the House suggest a mechanism for how Members can participate in the consultation anonymously?

[Mark Spencer]

Let me put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for her contributions to business questions and supporting my predecessor. It is indeed the last day for contributions to the consultation on standards. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the Chair of the Committee on Standards, tells me from a sedentary position that those will be taken anonymously. I encourage all colleagues to participate in that. This is an important issue on which we need to have cross-party support on how we move forward. I look forward to the findings of the Committee and debating them in future.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am sure the Leader of the House will share the widespread condemnation of the animal cruelty displayed by the West Ham footballer Kurt Zouma, which took place in front of a child and was filmed by the footballer’s brother, who can be heard laughing as the abuse was taking place. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out his disappointment that West Ham fielded this player in the days following this incident, thereby squandering the opportunity to demonstrate that it has zero tolerance towards the abuse of defenceless animals by any of its players, no matter how good they may be at playing football?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She is right to highlight this in the House of Commons. It was an appalling video; anybody who saw it could not help but be shocked by it. I understand that West Ham United have fined the player two weeks’ wages and donated that money to animal charities. I would gently say to Mr Zouma himself that maybe he would like to match-fund that money and donate it either to Cats Protection or Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which is not far from the London Stadium, where he plays. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight this shocking case—well done.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

For those who doubt that these questions are valuable, last week I raised a question on the failure of the Home Office to respond to my frequent correspondence in relation to immigration cases, and I am pleased to say that this week I have received a plethora of replies, and I thank my right hon. Friend’s predecessor for enabling that to happen. Indeed, tomorrow, an official is coming to my office to go through all the individual cases that are still outstanding.

Further to the question from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) about the abuse of and cruelty to domestic pets, my right hon. Friend—I congratulate him on his new job—is of course a farmer and looks after animals in an exemplary fashion. Can we have a statement on the Floor of the House from one of our Ministers on what measures can be taken to further protect domestic pets from this dreadful violence, which has obviously been perpetuated by a famous footballer but goes on every single day of the week throughout the years?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on the response of the Home Office. I would like to take full credit for that, but I will not. He is right to raise animal cruelty. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill is progressing through the House. This is something that the Government take very seriously. He mentions the fact that I am a farmer. We should be enormously proud, as UK agriculture, of the record of animal welfare within UK food production: we are world leading. As regards domestic pets, there will be lots of opportunities for that issue to be debated in future. Debates of that nature, should he apply for one, are always very popular.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I welcome the Leader of the House to his post, and to his first whingeing gits session, as business questions are affectionately known on both sides of the House.

May I support the plea from my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House for a debate in Government time on racism and anti-racism? The figures for attacks on Jewish and Muslim communities in particular are rocketing for all sorts of reasons, and many of us, including me, represent both communities.

[Mark Spencer]

This is an important issue, and, as I have said, we all have a responsibility to try to ensure that we get our language right in the House. Hate crime of any nature should not be tolerated. I think it is always a good thing to debate it at any point and to highlight and condemn it, as well as working with our law enforcement officers who are out there on the frontline dealing with it on a daily basis.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

The good people of Sherwood must be very proud today that their Member of Parliament has risen to become Leader of the House of Commons. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the position that he now holds. As one east midlands Member to another, may I ask him to confirm that he will facilitate, whenever possible, any debate in the House that seeks to highlight the great work that the Government do in helping to improve the lives of people and businesses in the east midlands?

[Chris Bryant]

Say no!

[Mark Spencer]

I think it unlikely that I am going to say no. My hon. Friend is a huge champion for Leicestershire and for the east midlands, and I shall be delighted to work with him to highlight the importance of the east midlands, to get more investment into the region, and to create more jobs and more opportunities for the next generation.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

In his opening statement, the new Leader of the House mentioned the £9.1 billion energy bill rebate that the Government have announced to help constituents up and down the country. Yesterday I visited small business owners in Kennington Road, in my constituency, and they told me that their energy bills were going through the roof. Some are having to take measures such as not turning on their electricity during the day when there are no customers. These are hard-working people who want their businesses to succeed. At a time when we are seeing Shell and BP make profits of £14 billion and £9 billion respectively, will the Leader of the House please consider providing Government time for us to discuss how we can help our constituents who are suffering pain now, given that this rebate will make no difference to their pockets?

[Mark Spencer]

I want those businesses to succeed as well. Everyone on the Government side of the House wants to see them succeed. I want to see them create jobs for the hon. Lady’s constituents and for mine, and I want to see them make a good profit and pay their contributions in tax. The energy companies that the hon. Lady mentioned, on which she wants to see a windfall tax, are already paying a huge rate of tax to the Exchequer, and many of our constituents depend on the share values of those companies for their pensions. We have to get the balance right. We need to ensure that those companies are efficient enough to deliver the lowest level of energy costs that they can manage, but the Exchequer has provided mechanisms to support those businesses and our constituents. I think the Government are striking the right balance, and that the proposals of the hon. Lady’s party would take us in the wrong direction.

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

High Peak is one of the safest places to live in the country, but for many years Fairfield Road in Buxton has been blighted by antisocial behaviour and drug-related crimes. I organised multi-agency meetings with the police, the fire brigade, the council, social services and the relevant housing associations so that we could develop a joined-up approach to tackling that crime and its underlying causes. I am pleased to report that since our meetings a series of arrests have been made, and the police have told me that there has been a 40% reduction in crime, but there is still a great deal more to do. With that in mind, may I ask for a debate on safer neighbourhood policing to enable us to make the case for more resources for local policing and make High Peak even safer?

[Mark Spencer]

I am delighted to hear about the extra funding and the reduction in crime in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Government are committed to bringing down crime rates. We have already recruited 11,000 new police officers, which is over halfway to delivering on the pledge that we made at the last general election. We are giving officers more of the powers that they need to police our streets. My hon. Friend is a huge champion for his constituency, and I am delighted to hear that he is making good progress in fighting crime.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I encourage colleagues to ask fairly short questions.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the new Leader of the House. Those of us who are regulars on a Thursday would prefer stimulation rather than soothing, and especially the stimulation of a Leader of the House who believes not in a presidential system run from No. 10 but a parliamentary democracy run here in this place.

On a lighter note, I am wearing my Valentine’s tie with hearts on it because it is Valentine’s day on Monday and we encourage everyone, in this House and outside, to send flowers to Nazanin on Monday. We cannot send them to her directly but they should be sent to the Iranian embassy. Let us build an enormous show of love for Nazanin and sympathy for her predicament on Monday. I hope that the new Leader of the House will join me in that.

[Mark Spencer]

I would be delighted to. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for the love he is demonstrating across the Chamber. I will assist him and the House in drawing attention to the fact that the Iranian state is still holding on to Nazanin. It is an outrage, and the sooner we can get her home, the better.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be familiar with the services provided by East Midlands Railway—although in the case of EMR’s Cleethorpes to Barton service, it is the lack of service that is causing my constituents concerns. Will he arrange a debate about reliability and the responsibility of the rail operating companies to their passengers?

[Mark Spencer]

I praise my hon. Friend for his role as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on rail. I am familiar with East Midlands Railway. He is a huge champion for the improvement of services to Cleethorpes, and I wish him well in that pursuit. He can always apply for an Adjournment debate to continue to highlight the challenges his constituents face.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role. I look forward to his attempts to lower the temperature in these sessions and am waiting for the moment when he tells me to “Calm down, dear”—I assure him that I will probably do the opposite.

I welcome yesterday’s announcement that cyber-flashing will become a specific offence in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. I congratulate Bumble and the End Violence Against Women Coalition on that victory. Will the Leader of the House please ensure that we see a timeline, via a statement in the House, for how the Government are going to take the change forward?

[Mark Spencer]

I think the hon. Lady may have confused me with Michael Winner—I do not think I have ever used those words.

The hon. Lady raises the important issue of violence against women and girls, which the Government take extremely seriously. I am sure the Home Office will update her on the progress made and that she will hold the Home Office to account as we move forward.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role.

The Mayor of London is failing my constituents in Kensington: he is looking to sell the Notting Hill police station to the highest bidder, meaning there will not be a police presence in the north of my borough after December 2022. My local council is putting together a bid to retain the site as an asset of community value. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Mayor of London should sell the site to my local council so that it is retained in the community rather than turned into luxury flats that will be bought by foreigners and probably never lived in?

[Mark Spencer]

The Mayor of London is the capital’s police and crime commissioner and is ultimately responsible for decisions of that kind. I note that his record on policing, and particularly on the scourge of knife crime, does not match that of his predecessor. My hon. Friend is diligent in her frequent questioning of the inadequacies of the Mayor of London and is a great champion of her constituents. I hope he listens to her pleas.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The UK Statistics Authority has written to the Government because the Prime Minister used the wrong figures when he talked about crime being down by 14% when it is in fact up by 14%. The Government have similarly been written to about the use of unemployment statistics that neglect to include people who are self-employed, the number of whom has dropped by 700,000 to 800,000, so there are in fact fewer people in employment, contrary to what the Government say. Will the Leader of the House undertake to investigate all the Ministers, including the Prime Minister, who have misinformed the House, albeit inadvertently, on those statistics and ensure that they come back and put the record straight, as they are required to do?

[Mark Spencer]

I think the hon. Gentleman rescued himself at the end by putting in the word “inadvertently”, because I know he would not want to suggest that anybody would come to the House and deliberately mislead anyone. I can cheer him up by telling him that the work on crime that the Government are delivering is making great progress. We are working on drugs strategies, we are shutting down county lines, we are investing £200 million in the youth endowment fund, we are lifting the number of police officers throughout the United Kingdom and we are working very hard to bring down violent crime—and succeeding. It is time for him to be more positive about crime reduction, get behind the Government, and support our police officers by recognising their hard work.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent start in his new role. This weekend, CPRE Bedfordshire is arranging a series of walks in conjunction with local parishes across the Bedfordshire countryside to highlight the pressure that excessive development is placing on our natural environment. What progress are the Government making with our infrastructure-first initiatives and our planning targets? Could we have a statement from the Minister responsible for those topics?

[Mark Spencer]

My hon. Friend is a keen campaigner on the issue of development on the green belt. A new Housing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who is a great man and the former Deputy Chief Whip, was recently appointed. I encourage my hon. Friend to get in contact with him to ensure that he understands the priorities. Many safeguards have been put in place in terms of planning. I wish him well, as many hon. Members have the same concerns.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Will the new Leader of the House provide an urgent statement on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s performance? The Transport Committee has criticised it twice in recent months. My constituent, who is a taxi driver, is desperate because his livelihood depends on his licence being returned to him. Another constituent needs to travel abroad but it has had her passport for three months. Can he work some magic to resolve those issues?

[Mark Spencer]

I know that issue is recognised in the Department for Transport. The hon. Lady will understand that, coming out of a global pandemic, there have been challenges in several Government Departments, where people have been working from home, to process all that information as quickly as it should be delivered. She is right to highlight that and I am sure that she will have an opportunity at Transport questions to question the Secretary of State for Transport on that matter.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

The Government agree that an offshore transmission network is the best way to connect offshore wind to the national grid, but under current plans, an OTN will not be in place until after 2030, when we have had 40 GW from offshore wind by 2030 set out under the green industrial revolution. National Grid ESO estimates that that will cost consumers an extra £6 billion. Is there time for a debate on the need to accelerate the development and installation of the OTN so that it is ready for 2030 and the 40 GW connection, not after it?

[Mark Spencer]

I think there are Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions in the week we return from half-term, and I know that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity to question our colleagues in BEIS then. The Government are managing the transition from a carbon-driven energy production system to new tech. I know that he is a keen advocate of that, and I am sure that he will hold us to account as we make that transition.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

FDR created the Executive Office of the President in response to the great depression and to drive through the new deal. The Office of the Prime Minister has been created in response to partygate and to get through a leadership crisis. Can we have a debate on the significant constitutional change—the power grab—that is being perpetrated by Downing Street?

[Mark Spencer]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is being a little disingenuous. The Prime Minister wants to bring efficiency to Downing Street, which will benefit my constituents and his. We need a system in Government that delivers for the House of Commons so that hon. Members in the Chamber can hold the Government to account as well as bringing the changes that our constituents desperately need to see.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I welcome the new Leader of the House. Could he apply some of his famed Sudocrem to those of us on both sides of the House who would like to see the Vagrancy Act 1824 repealed by allowing us to vote for the amendment from Lord Best and Lord Young—the latter is a distinguished former Chief Whip—in due course?

Although this is not the most important issue about Russia on the table, will the Leader of the House encourage Ministers in the Treasury and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to help Gloucester City Council, which has been badly hacked, reportedly by those in Russia?

[Mark Spencer]

My hon. Friend’s question highlights the importance of the security services in dealing with hacks in which local authorities have been subject to ransom software. We will continue to do anything we can as a Government to support local authorities or Government agencies to avoid that. On the Vagrancy Act, I am aware of the amendment currently in the House of Lords, which the Government are looking at closely. As soon as we have made a decision on that, I am sure that the House will be updated.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

It should really be one question.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I welcome the Leader of the House to his new role. Given that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and, I think, the majority of the British public support the continuation of telemedicine—the Government also had a consultation on it that ended in February 2021—is it not time for an urgent statement from the Department of Health and Social Care about the future for telemedicine? Last week, The Daily Telegraph reported that Ministers had said that they would extend it, but that was not brought to the House of Commons first. It is however the right decision, because it is the healthcare that women in 2022 need and the Abortion Act 1967, which is more than 50 years old, is no longer fit for purpose.

[Mark Spencer]

I recognise the right hon. Lady’s work and how passionately she has campaigned in this area. It is a sensitive issue on which I fear to tread at this moment in time. We have Health and Social Care questions on 1 March, which will give her an opportunity to ask questions, but I expect that any changes that she referenced will be debated in the House and that she will have an opportunity to question Ministers on them.

[Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place; he is doing an excellent job.

One hundred and seventy-five years ago, Barrow-in-Furness comprised little more than a few sheep farms, but the discovery of iron ore opened up Barrow to the world and Henry Schneider’s railway showed its potential. It is because of the iron and steel of the railways that we now deliver the national deterrent. With that in mind, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no better place for the home of Great British Railways than Barrow-in-Furness? Will he give time for a debate so that colleagues can discuss the issue further?

[Mark Spencer]

As I said earlier, the Great British Railways transition team is running a competition, and I wish my hon. Friend every success as I do my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara), who also hopes to bid. I remind the House that the Government have a plan to deliver a wide range of change on our railways. I congratulate him on being a huge campaigner and great advocate for Barrow—he is a true champion for the town—and wish him well.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

The Brexit dividend was supposed to reduce paperwork and red tape, so how come next week 50 questionnaires will be sent to Downing Street?

[Mark Spencer]

Of course, we have a new Minister in place who will deliver the Brexit dividend. There are huge opportunities coming forward for the United Kingdom. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to get behind Brexit and to celebrate all that is Brexit. In the words of the movie “Frozen”—I do not know whether he has seen it—he should “let it go”. We have got to move forward and celebrate Brexit.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

I also welcome the Leader of the House to his place. As I am sure the whole House knows, this is a momentous year for rugby league. We are starting the season today with rugby league being shown on two TV stations, and then the rugby league world cup will be hosted by England later this year. Does the Leader of the House agree that this momentous year should be celebrated in this House, starting with a debate in Government time on the power of sport and the huge contribution that rugby league in particular makes to our communities and to society as a whole?

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I warmly welcome her question. It is important in answering that I mention Warrington Wolves, or Mr Speaker will be upset. I know that he is a huge fan of rugby league, and we should celebrate all that those small clubs do, with thousands and thousands of volunteers and parents turning out at weekends, supporting their kids playing football, rugby league and rugby union and many other sports. It is good for the mental health of their kids and their fitness, and it is good for families to have something to do at weekends that draws them together and keeps them as a unit.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role and thank his predecessor, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), for his assistance in pursuing the Business Secretary after I raised in November the issue of best available techniques, which set the conditions for environmental permits for key industries. Unfortunately, we are no further forward. The Government response to the April 2021 consultation has not yet been published, and we are only weeks away from the arrangements taking effect. There also seems to be uncertainty as to which Department is responsible. Can we therefore have a statement from the appropriate Minister, and will the Leader of the House allow time for Members to debate this issue?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for recognising the efforts of my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. First, let us try to identify the Department that is responsible. I will try to assist him in doing that, and then we can together pursue that Department to get the answers that he desires.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Luton North finds strength in its diversity; it really is one town of many voices. My constituents are concerned by the rising incidence of Islamophobia, backed up by worrying new findings from the University of Birmingham that Britons are three times more likely to discriminate against Muslims than any other faith group. Their fears are all compounded by reports of Islamophobia at the heart of this Government. The shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), did not get a straight answer, so I will try again. Will people’s legitimate concerns be addressed in Government time, yes or no?

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight all forms of hate crime and racial discrimination, and I am committed to assisting her in any way I can to try to diminish, reduce or eradicate racial hatred and racial crime. It is an appalling crime and it should be condemned at all levels. If I can assist her in any way in doing that, I would be delighted to do so.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The now Leader of the House is more than familiar with the details of the Owen Paterson scandal that did so much damage to our politics, given his role in those events. The rot needs to be cut out. Given that, will the Leader of the House give time to debate my Bill to ban second jobs for MPs—a Bill that the Government are repeatedly blocking from progressing?

[Mark Spencer]

I should declare an interest, as I have a second job. As well as being the Member of Parliament for Sherwood, I am also the Leader of the House. I do not know whether he wants to ban me from having my second role, but that would be challenging. The House of Commons benefits from a wide range of experience, backgrounds and former careers and, to a certain extent, colleagues should be encouraged to be out there in the real world experiencing other forms of employment. I think the hon. Gentleman is being a little disingenuous. If I am being honest with him, it would be pretty difficult for me as a farmer to extract myself from that. I live in the middle of that farm. I do not know how I would extract myself from that business if I was no longer allowed to have a second job. I am not prepared to divorce my wife or to move house. I do not know quite how I would deliver on the route he wants to go.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

The bus industry is hearing that the Government are contemplating the removal of current covid subsidies for bus companies from April or shortly afterwards. That would be extremely detrimental to bus services in Warrington, potentially requiring full route withdrawals and a stiff fares rise. Both would be extremely unpopular and could leave parts of our town cut off from public transport. Will the Leader of the House therefore please arrange for a statement in Government time on bus funding, so that this issue can be resolved and continued funding secured as we build back public transport after the pandemic?

[Mark Spencer]

I think the Department for Transport just announced £29 million extra to support buses, but the hon. Lady must recognise that as we move out of covid we need to move back to original funding levels in those areas. The good news is that we are coming out of covid. We will be the first country to get rid of all covid measures. That is thanks to the Prime Minister who, at the very early stages, pushed the vaccine programme and delivered the booster programme. I warmly welcome our move away from covid and back to a normal way of working.

[Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

I welcome the Leader of the House to his new position. Will he make time, on the Floor of the House, for a debate on Islamophobia? I have spoken previously on the Floor of the House about my experiences of Islamophobia and racism. Does he agree that an individual’s religion, or indeed no religion, should never be a barrier to them in the workplace?

[Mark Spencer]

I wholly agree with the hon. Lady that someone’s religion, sexuality, sex or age should not be a barrier to their career. She is one of a number of Members this morning who has asked for a debate of that nature. It is clearly very popular. I encourage her to link up with the other colleagues who have asked for that debate and to petition the Backbench Business Committee. I am sure the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who Chairs the Committee, will listen to those pleas.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Next week is Love Unions Week. May I put on record the incredible work that our trade unions do every day, supporting workers through the very challenging twists and turns of the workplace, but also over the last two years supporting workers through the pandemic, and supporting the growth of the economy and advancing workers’ rights? May we have a debate in Government time to talk about the value of trade unions, and encourage people to join their trade union and make a difference to the world of work?

[Mark Spencer]

I should declare my interest as a member of the National Farmers Union. Unions are a force for good in many circumstances. A debate on the success of unions is something the hon. Lady clearly believes in passionately. I encourage her to apply for an Adjournment debate, so she can put on the record her desire to celebrate all that is good about UK unions.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I congratulate the Leader of the House on being able to hold down three jobs. Several of my constituents do not have a job. They lost their job or had a job offer withdrawn because it took the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency six months or more to renew their driving licence. I firmly support the earlier request by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) for a debate in Government time to look into the performance of the DVLA, in particular the gross discrimination against people who have to declare a medical condition. That is what is causing the delays. That is what forces people to use an outdated manual system, instead of the online system. Will the Leader of the House advise his colleagues in other Departments that that discrimination is not only indefensible; it is almost certainly unlawful and the Government could be facing a massive compensation bill if they do not get their act together pronto?

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the cases he talks about. There will be an opportunity for him to question Transport Ministers in the near future. I encourage him to use the methods available to him to pursue this issue in the House with an Adjournment debate or a Backbench Business debate.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

Tomorrow is UN International Day of Woman and Girls in Science, which pushes for full and equal access and participation for women and girls in science, given the significant gender gap that persists, particularly in accessing participation in higher education. Could we have a debate in Government time on the important role that BTECs and other applied general qualifications, such as biomedical science, play in allowing women and girls to access higher education, including on the impact that defunding BTECs will have on that participation?

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Member is right to highlight that issue. It is important to get young girls into science, technology, maths and engineering topics. The Government have made great progress in that direction, and the Secretary of State for Education and his Department would celebrate and love the opportunity to set out their record. If the hon. Member were to apply for an Adjournment debate, she would give the Secretary of State the opportunity to tell her about the great work that the Government are doing.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On behalf of myself and my party, I welcome the Leader of the House to his new job, fresh from his job as Chief Whip. I also wish the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), well in his new role.

Two weeks ago, the House of Lords highlighted that the NHS sourced materials made by the forced labour of Christians, Tibetans, Uyghurs and Falun Gong practitioners in Xinjiang, China. Will the Leader of the House provide a statement on the steps that Her Majesty’s Government are taking to ensure that goods procured for the NHS are free from the forced labour of prisoners of conscience in that region?

[Mark Spencer]

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions are on 8 March. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a long-term campaigner for the rights of the oppressed in foreign countries and the rights of Christians around the world. It is important that he highlights those challenges. The matter is worthy of debate, and I encourage him to apply for an Adjournment debate so that all the issues can be thrashed out.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I welcome the Leader of the House to his place.

On Sunday morning, I will be enjoying locals at Hamilton Accies football club for The Big Step challenge, which is a campaign to end all gambling advertising and sponsorship in football. The campaign is part of Gambling with Lives—a charity set up by families bereaved by gambling-related suicide. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in Government time on the highly anticipated White Paper on the Gambling Act 2005, and on how those with lived experience can inform the legislative outcomes?

[Mark Spencer]

The issue is worthy of debate. Many people participate in gambling, and it does them no harm—it is something that they enjoy—but clearly there are people who become addicted. Putting in place safeguards to protect those people and ensure that they are safe from predatory activity is worthy of debate. I wish the hon. Member well in her campaign.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I add my congratulations to the Leader of the House on his new role. I know that it was on the tip of his tongue to wish Doncaster good luck in its bid to be the home of Great British Railways; I am sure that it was just the time constraint that prevented him from doing so. Welcome, Leader of the House.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope this is helpful, as it follows on from the earlier questions about the Standards Committee’s current code of conduct review. The consultation ends today, and I know that the Government are close to sending in their own submission. Neither I, nor the Committee, would want any Member of the House to be treated any differently from the public in their submission. Members of the public can make a submission to the consultation online and simply click the box that says, “I would like to remain anonymous”, and that facility is also available to Members.

Alternatively, Members can email me or the Clerk of the Committee. It is helpful for us to know that a submission has come from a Member, but if they wanted to indicate that they would like to remain anonymous, we would undertake to maintain that anonymity when we publish all the responses to the consultation. We really do want to hear everybody’s views as openly as possible. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you can answer that point of order, which was not really a point of order at all.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I was just about to say that I felt that it was more a public service broadcast than a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has obviously passed on the information very effectively.

Backbench Business

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

UK-Taiwan Friendship and Co-operation

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

12:34

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the importance of the UK’s relationship with Taiwan; calls on the Government to continue to work towards the strengthening of the UK-Taiwan trade relationship and deepening of security cooperation; and further calls on the Government to support Taiwan’s recognition in the international community.

An island like our own, Taiwan is a democracy where free markets and the rule of law are valued and upheld. Reverence of liberty and respect for fair governance are treasured by the Taiwanese, just as they are in countries across the free world. Yet Taiwan is also unique. It has a beautiful culture born out of the many peoples and countries that have touched the island. Within this diversity, the Taiwanese show elements of a common culture with their Chinese cousins. They speak Mandarin, and they gather every year to celebrate the same traditions as those on the Chinese mainland. For example, just this month, millions of Taiwanese celebrated the beginning of the lunar new year, and I am sure everyone will join me in wishing them well in the year of the tiger.

However, Taiwan has always been distinct. Following the fall of the Ming dynasty in 1644, Taiwan was ruled separately from the emergent Ching dynasty in Beijing. The Kangxi Emperor, who ruled China for longer than any other, said of the island:

“We gain nothing by possessing it, and it would be no loss if we did not acquire it.”

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

To what extent does my hon. Friend believe that, following our withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Government of China are watching very closely our resolve in the face of threats to Ukraine, as they assess what they might do with regard to their ambitions in the South China sea?

[Alicia Kearns]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that comment, and he is absolutely right that autocratic Governments across the world are now questioning our resolve and questioning our ability to go in and defend our neighbours, particularly to uphold the values of democracy. I will elucidate that point more if he gives me a little time.

While the pomposity of that comment and attitude about Taiwan does not reflect the immense value of this nation, it does highlight the novelty of the Chinese claims to the island. China did not always claim the right to govern Taiwan, and that is important in understanding the current tensions as we look at recent developments.

Taiwan has not always been the democracy we see today. The years after the second world war saw the emergence of a one-party nationalist state, with widespread political repression. At the beginning of the 1980s, however, Taiwan pursued democratic reform. Building on the rapid economic growth post war, the island became a multi-party, rules-based democracy. This transformation was known as the Taiwan miracle. The Economist global democracy index now shows just how far Taiwan come. I doubt many Members would know that Taiwan is ranked as the 11th most democratic country on earth and the No. 1 most democratic country in Asia, according to The Economist, which is a quite outstanding achievement.

Taiwan is therefore the living, breathing truth that societies rooted in Chinese culture are capable of developing into free market, democratic and rules-respecting members of the international community. It is this truth that explains why the Chinese Communist party fears Taiwan so greatly, because as long as Taiwan exists, the world will know that Government need not be defined by control, repression and even genocide, as we have seen under the Chinese Communist party. When Xi Jinping claims that Taiwan has always been part of China, he is using a false narrative to pursue his political agenda.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree with me that the problem we have at the moment is that there seems to be an absence of strategy from the Government towards China and its relationship with Taiwan? Does she feel that we do need something urgently to fill that gap or, as the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said, China will be looking very closely at our reactions and perhaps its own actions will be influenced by that lack of strategy?

[Alicia Kearns]

I thank the hon. Lady, and I very much agree that we need a cross-Government strategy on China. However, I think she will probably hear from the Minister later some relief on that subject, because I believe that a cross-Government strategy is currently being developed. It looks as though the officials in the Box are relieved that I am saying so, but we will wait to hear about that later.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Some people have often said that China has adopted a patient attitude to Taiwan and thinks that eventually it will somehow fall into China’s lap. Is it not important that we have a cross-party, cross-House and whole-nation approach to this in the UK, and do we not have just as deep a well of patience as China?

[Alicia Kearns]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. China believes it is in the ascendancy and needs simply to wait it out until the UK and the US lose their ability to maintain an international rules-based order, and then it can occupy Taiwan. He puts it very well when he says that we too are watching and we too will wait, and we will stand by our allies. He is absolutely right that we need a cross-party approach, and I believe that under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) we see exactly that on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The current tensions in Taiwan must be seen for what they are: the direct result of the emergence of democracy and the Chinese Communist party’s own insecurity about a modern, successful and democratic Chinese society. When people ask why we should care about an island on the other side of the globe, the answer is simple. Taiwan represents the best of democracy, and the United Kingdom must always take the side of democracy and our friends who are trying to uphold its values.

Over the past few years, we in this House have watched with dismay as the Chinese Communist party has stripped away the freedoms and liberties of our friends in Hong Kong. The implementation of the national security law has transformed a vibrant and open society into a repressive, Orwellian nightmare, where a teenager faces prison for voicing slightly critical views on social media. While we all mourn the loss of those freedoms, I urge hon. Members not to fall into a state of resignation; our friends in Taiwan need more than that.

Therefore, I will discuss three areas that bind the interests of the United Kingdom to Taiwan: further economic co-operation, international recognition, and security and regional stability. The UK and Taiwan already enjoy a fruitful trading relationship: £7.2 billion of goods and services were exchanged in 2020 alone. Taiwan, as we all know, is the leading producer of semiconductor chips, the micro-engines of our modern world. From mobile phones to the fighter planes that make up the Royal Air Force, the importance of those chips cannot be overstated, but there has been a shortage in recent years, leading both the European Union and USA to implement strategies to maintain their access. We must do the same.

Sensing an opportunity, the Chinese Communist party is already moving to try to dominate this market, although I suspect it will not be able to because of the high-quality workmanship needed to create the chips. Only last year, China purchased the UK’s largest producer of semiconductor chips, Newport Wafer Fab. I opposed the takeover, as did the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I urge the Government to continue to do more to protect industries of special national interest. We cannot be selling them off. We must seek to produce, to protect our own production capabilities and to foster trading relationships with democracies that will protect supply chains.

A trade deal with Taiwan would not only ensure access to semiconductor chips, but help the UK to achieve our net zero targets without compromising on our morals. In my Rutland and Melton constituency there is a 2,175-acre solar plant proposed on good agricultural land, which is being developed by a de facto Chinese company with supply chains reaching into Xinjiang, the site of the Chinese Communist party’s genocide. I will not see Rutland’s soil tainted by mass human rights atrocities. I urge the Government to pursue a bilateral trade deal, because we know Taiwan produces quality solar panels free of Uyghur blood labour.

Taiwan is a country committed to net zero by 2050, producing high-quality green technology, and it shares our democratic morals. What better partner for a trade deal? Let us strike one and begin to develop the alternative supply chains we need to free Taiwan and to a lesser extent ourselves from economic reliance on the Chinese mainland. Let us focus on high-quality technologies and renewables. There is opportunity for us and for them.

The UK is also in the process of joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. We have recognised the shift in global wealth and power towards the Indo-Pacific, and global Britain is rightly stepping up to that. As we pivot towards Asia, however, we must have someone to lean on. Taiwan could play an important role there.

We are all aware of the limitations placed on Taiwan globally: despite having the 21st largest economy and a population of 24 million, it is still barred from meaningful participation in much of the international order. Although tens of millions of passengers pass through its airports, Taiwan has not been represented at the International Civil Aviation Organization since 2014. That is illogical, and the UK must support its readmittance to that body.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for Taiwan’s place in the international community and its role in international bodies. Does she agree that this is not just about Taiwan, but about us as well? What we have seen from the absence of Taiwan’s voice on the World Health Organisation is a worse performance against covid, the Wuhan virus that emerged under Chinese tutelage. Does she agree that we are seeing a damaged response and a worsened ability of the British people to protect themselves because China has decided, for its own selfish reasons, to bully and silence Taiwan?

[Alicia Kearns]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There is no question but that the Taiwanese response to covid was transparent. It was one of friendship, education and reaching out, yet the international community somehow closed their doors to it. Not only is Taiwan barred from the World Health Organisation and World Health Assembly, but it was expelled from its observer position. That is not acceptable for a country that had impressive contact tracing and border controls, and a rejection of the Orwellian restrictions that other countries put in place.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. As she rightly pointed out, Taiwan is a beacon not only of liberal democracy but of scientific co-operation, and it has shown huge expertise in the way it dealt with the covid-19 pandemic. She has rightly called for Taiwan to be readmitted with observer status to the WHO. What specific and tangible steps does she think the British Government should be taking to lobby the international community to make that happen? When does she think we should start seeing more tangible action from the British Government in that context?

[Alicia Kearns]

We know there are partners across the world who wish to support us in upholding the rights and opportunities of our democratic partners. We should be forming constellations of alliances in every multilateral organisation and zone, where we lobby and work together, whether that is ensuring that we get the right president of Interpol, or ensuring that we have friends such as the Taiwanese at the table or with observer status. Those are things that the UK can lead on, because no nation in the world is better at convening other nations than the UK. If we put our mind to it, we can achieve it.

We must be careful to avoid an unnecessary clash with China in which Taiwan is caught in the middle and becomes collateral damage. The current settlement has maintained peace for 40 years, and we should never underestimate the importance and value of peace. We must therefore be careful in the framing of our relationship and duties to Taiwan. The emergence of full-blown US-China or UK-China strategic rivalry risks increasing Taiwan’s place in political rhetoric between our nations, or it becoming a lightning rod for international agitation and a signal, or a de facto signal, of how strongly a country is or is not standing up to the Chinese Communist party. While that might be easy, or even attractive, to fall into, our Taiwanese friends deserve more meaningful engagement from all of us in this place; it should not be because Taiwan is a useful pawn in our wider competition or debates. I urge the Minister to ensure that we pursue meaningful engagement with Taiwan and that we act tactfully. When I call for Taiwan to have greater international recognition, it is on account of its democracy, its expertise and its status as a free-market friend; not as a tool in a wider struggle.

There are things we can learn from Taiwan, and we must, as we establish this new constellation of alliances around the world. We must also be alert to the risk of framing Taiwan as the smaller cousin of a great beast. It deserves better than that. The Taiwanese are not an embattled people withstanding increasing pressure from the authoritarian communist mainland, which sits waiting to launch an invasion. Taiwan is a strong, thriving economy and society, and a friend, and we must support it in the measured and diplomatic manner that it deserves.

Our first step would be a round of ministerial visits, and I hope the Minister can arrange reciprocal visits, particularly with a Minister at Cabinet level who could represent all of Government, given that we recognise the restrictions on the engagement of particular Departments. I also call for formal recognition to be given to the Taipei representative office, and for meaningful political dialogue. Indeed, His Excellency—I call him that on purpose—the ambassador of Taiwan is observing this debate today; he joins us in the Chamber, and I am sure we all wish to extend our welcome to him. What a gesture it would be if we were to consider granting his office, which serves Taiwan with great distinction, legal diplomatic status.

I have already spoken about the strength of Taiwan’s democracy, the unique culture of its people, and the immense contribution it can and wants to make internationally. But all that is at risk. The 40 years of peace preserved under the principle that Taiwan is a part of China, which we recognise but do not necessarily believe in fully, is being tested. Xi Jinping has committed himself to the political reunification, or “the great rejuvenation” as he calls it, of Taiwan and China, including through the use of force. Already in 2022, in just 27 days, Taiwan has suffered over 148 threatening flights by Chinese aircraft into the air defence identification zone, threatening the Taiwanese air force through a concerted campaign to erode its confidence, as well as grievous aggravations in the Taiwan strait.

The UK is committed to the international rules-based order and I welcome that the Royal Navy’s flagship, the Queen Elizabeth, went to the Taiwan strait last year. I praise the Government for getting Taiwan on the agenda of the recent G7 meeting under our presidency. This is the sort of forward-thinking engagement that we need, but we must do more.

We cannot sit back and wait for any tragedies, such as those in Hong Kong, to occur again. We must act, and we must act now. I ask the Minister to work with our allies around the world, to engage with those nations that respect freedom and have the same concerns that we do, to set in place deterrents and diplomacy to protect our Taiwanese friends, and to ensure we are monitoring, perhaps in the conflict zone that was recently established, the increasing grey-zone hostilities against Taiwan, so that we can measure the incremental and subtle escalations that are taking place.

We also need to look at resilience building with our Taiwanese friends, whether helping them counter disinformation campaigns, developing supply chain resilience or ensuring they can retain access to markets worldwide, which will surely be one the first places that China will seek to hurt them. We have all been impressed by the swift actions of this Government in Ukraine, but now we must show that we are truly a global Britain and will act worldwide.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which is long overdue. On that point, the Foreign Secretary has been in Russia this week, showing steely determination to stand up to Russia about the way it is behaving with Ukraine. Do we need the same kind of steely determination shown towards Beijing over its attitude towards Taiwan and Hong Kong, and its general behaviour in that part of the world?

[Alicia Kearns]

My hon. Friend has long been an advocate and friend of the Taiwanese people. The issue is that for too long autocratic countries around the world have seen no cost when they escalate, escalate and escalate. Whether is it Dodik in Bosnia, Putin in Ukraine and around our near neighbourhood, or China in Hong Kong, and whether domestically or in the countries around them, I fear greatly that we fail to bring costs to bear that matter, at our own peril.

Let us look at the situation in Ukraine. Putin has achieved much in the past few weeks. We have given him the world status that he has been craving, with America, France and England all going to Moscow to be called equal to him on the world stage. We have given tacit agreement to him that those borders that he has already occupied are now his to keep. “Just don’t go any further,” we say. That is not enough. That is not a cost. Putin has won greatly in the past few weeks.

While we all recognise the threats facing democracy today, how we in this place respond matters, because it will define the future of the United Kingdom. Around the world, Parliaments are watching us and listening to us. How we respond now will define the rest of this century, and our children’s children’s future. We are proud of our country for its role in protecting democracy in the past, and we must channel that pride into action. I urge all Members to raise their voices in support of Taiwan.

Let us strike a trade deal that benefits our economy and supports our ally; support their democratic values and their strength in being the No.1 democracy in Asia; and give Taiwan’s representatives in the UK the legal status they need. I call for Taiwan to be given a voice internationally, and to be readmitted to both the World Health Organisation and the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

Most importantly, let us ensure that everyone knows that we in this place stand clearly behind the US, as the main guarantor of Taiwan’s security, and our allies in the preservation of peace and stability in the Taiwan strait. We know that Taiwan has much to offer to the world. As our friend, it is our duty to ensure that its contribution is heard, accepted and embraced.

12:54

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on leading this important debate. I must declare an interest, having been a guest of Taipei in the past. I welcome the ambassador and his team to the House this afternoon.

This month, we have been reminded more than ever of the importance of allies around the world, and of friendship with nations that are at risk from bullying neighbours. Taiwan is a liberal democracy. It has free and fair elections and a free press. Indeed, it outperforms the UK in international democracy rankings. Those are principles and a record worth defending. Just as we all look on cautiously at what is happening in Ukraine, the future of Taiwan, too, could change the world. It is in no one’s interest to see conflict, but, as we saw in Syria with President Obama’s red lines, a commitment to act that is not backed by action is a free pass for enemies of peace. President Biden and other Pacific allies understand the importance of Taiwan. The new-found focus on the Pacific will bear fruit. Stability, democracy and freedom are valuable and right. They are our own aims and values, and they should be recognised as such.

That is surely part of the reason why relations between Taiwan and the UK continue to improve. Nine out of 10 UK companies feel positive or very positive about their business outlook in Taiwan—an all-time high. Trade is booming, investment grows and British whisky is used to toast that success. Taiwan is a critical partner for the UK. As a world leader in high-tech manufacturing, Taiwan accounts for one fifth of global chip manufacturing and, it is estimated, half of all cutting-edge capacity. Any risk to that is a serious threat to the UK, and it would put the entire global supply chain at risk. The impact does not bear thinking about.

Taiwan is currently excluded from regional co-operation and trade bodies. While we may have chosen to exclude ourselves from our neighbours, Taiwan wants to make no such mistake. I hope the UK will continue to support Taiwan’s continued attempts at international participation. I urge partners around the world, including the World Health Organisation and the International Civil Aviation Organisation, to co-operate with Taiwan. Taiwan has much to offer us in knowledge and expertise, and we should not allow it to be stifled.

The United States remains unparalleled in its importance, guaranteeing Taiwanese independence, and we must stand shoulder to shoulder against intimidation. I look forward to continued ministerial engagement with Taiwan, and to us being able to learn as much as possible from Taiwan’s sizeable healthcare experience. I urge the Government to afford the Taipei representative office in the UK some form of legal status and to ease existing restrictions on high-level Taiwanese officials travelling to the UK.

12:59

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am very lucky to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma)—I do call him my hon. Friend—as they both covered so many of the issues that I would have covered. I am freed to speak on a slightly wider area, because this is not just about the immediate proximity of the relationship between the United Kingdom and Taiwan; it is about the relationship that we have sadly had with Beijing in recent years.

A few years ago, I was privileged to be elected by the previous Parliament as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. One of the first things I wanted to do was to look at our relationship with China, to see how we could develop it, what we could improve, what we could make better and perhaps what we could put aside. I reached out to the then Chinese ambassador, was invited to meet China’s Potemkin Parliament and the Committee was invited to Beijing.

We did what we usually do and put in our visa requests, having already been told that, as guests of the National People’s Congress, they would go through. One of our members, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell)—I am glad to see him here today—was with us and China stopped the visa process. I was told that I had to demand that he apologise for being a member of the all-party parliamentary group on Taiwan. I know many people have ideas that Committee Chairs are getting too powerful, but even I did not think I had the power to silence him. Indeed, many Prime Ministers and many greater people than me have found that no one has the power to silence him.

I am delighted to say that the politburo and the chairman of the Central Military Commission, from which the man who claims to be President derives his real power, discovered that they do not have the power to silence my hon. Friend, either. He did not apologise and visas were issued. For me, it was a very important first lesson that we have to stand up for what really matters. We have to stand up for ourselves, for our democracy and for our freedom, and we have to be absolutely clear why we are doing it. Of course we wanted to visit Beijing, and of course the Chinese Government have the right to issue or not to issue visas to the Foreign Affairs Committee—that is absolutely fair, as they do not have to issue visas to us—but they do not have the right to decide who sits on the Committee, as that is the privilege of this House and of our people.

That was my first lesson on the kind of relationship we have with Beijing at the moment. It hugely reversed what I hoped would be a constructive direction, and I am very sorry that it did so. Many of us who have been to China on a few occasions think incredibly highly of the Chinese people and of the culture and civilisation that has developed in different communities—some Han, some Mongol, some Tibetan, some Uyghur. We know that the Hui people have harboured Islam in their hearts, and we know there are Christian communities that go back 1,600, 1,700 and maybe even 1,800 years in different parts of China. We know this is a culture that is expressed in many different ways, and it is not always in a single unitary state. This is an area that has given the world such enormous wealth, richness, diversity and innovation.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of these peoples do not want to be Chinese? They want to be Tibetan, for instance. They are forced to remain within China’s boundaries against their will, and China refuses them the opportunity for self-determination, which is shameful.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman will know very well that this country recognises that peoples in our community have the right to self-determination. In China, sadly, that has been taken away from people. I agree entirely that there are many peoples who the Chinese state calls Chinese, but who call themselves something else. We have always recognised that people choose their status, not Governments.

Let me come back to Taiwan and why the debate is so important. Many of us are focusing, understandably, on what is going on in Moscow. We are focusing on the journey that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary took today to see her opposite number, Mr Lavrov. We are focused on the fact that we are seeing physical threats to borders in Europe for the first time since 2014—and that was the first time that had happened since 1945. We are seeing genuine aggression against free and sovereign people in a way that we have not in 60 or 70 years, except for in the case of the annexation of Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and, of course, Donetsk and Luhansk.

We are also seeing dictatorships trying to undermine democracies. We are seeing it because they have shown it to us. The relationship between Mr Putin and Mr Xi is extremely concerning. They have advertised it to us; they met in order to demonstrate their commitment to each other, and to undermining democracy and freedom around the world. That is why we are talking about Taiwan today. We are seeing a real moment in global politics—a point when we are more vulnerable than we have been for a long time. We see, sadly, a diversion of attention in Washington, confusion in Brussels, and a proliferation of different ideas, thoughts and challenges in Paris, Berlin and Rome.

We are seeing steel in Vilnius and Warsaw, and among many partners and friends. But sadly we are not seeing it as widely as we need to. That is exposing us to a double-edged risk—perhaps not just the risk that Russia may invade Ukraine. It may; 125,000 troops on the border suggests that it is possible. But Russia may also use this opportunity to demonstrate that there is confusion and division in the west, and use that to convince friends and allies that the deals that it has made in the last 20 or 30 years are no longer valid, and that they should bow down to Beijing and Moscow instead. That would be much more damaging to our long-term future, our peoples’ liberties, and our economic prosperity than many other decisions that could be taken. What is worse, the decision to do that in Ukraine would open up an opportunity to think about doing the same in Taiwan.

It is certainly true that any military invasion of Taiwan would be extremely difficult. The Chinese military—the People’s Liberation Army Navy, as it is somewhat bizarrely called—has been developing an amphibious capability that it thinks puts it in with a chance of a successful landing on Taiwan’s shores. I know—we all know—that is what it is doing; it is not a secret.

[Alicia Kearns]

I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend when he is making such a good point, but does he agree that, very concerningly, some of the research, intelligence and information that underpin some of those new technological advances that China is making are coming from British universities, British researchers and British companies, where espionage is at large? It is funding them quite openly, yet there seems to be no accountability in academia for the selling of what should be state-protected secrets to somebody who is clearly at odds with our own interests.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and I will come back to that point, because she will not be surprised to hear that I wish to build on it.

Those of us who have some experience of fighting in mountains know that it is a lot harder for the attacker than the defender. Those of us who have sadly spent too much time reading stories of Operation Overlord will know that even the short straits that separate us from northern France provided an extremely difficult obstacle for our forebears to get over. So 100 miles of really difficult water to cross on the straits of Taiwan really does present an obstacle. Indeed, the sea state there is often so difficult that only for very short windows is it possible to truly cross. The landing positions that the Chinese forces would need to assault are narrow and therefore likely to afford Taiwanese forces the ability to defend.

I do not think that we should really be looking at the military threat in the classical sense. Instead, we are looking at the military threat in the sense of what we see from Russia in Ukraine and, sadly, from China in other parts of the world. We are seeing an erosion—an erosion of the will to fight, an erosion of the nation state to hold together, and an erosion of the integrity of a society to resist pressure—and that is coming in many, many different ways.

The first, sadly, is in what has become known as fake news: the disinformation campaigns that we are seeing around the world, the extraordinary assaults on our intelligence, our intellect and our ability to talk to one another as equals by spreading the hatred and lies that we see, sadly, too frequently here in the UK, in the United States and in many other countries. We are seeing that being absolutely industrialised in countries such as Ukraine and Taiwan. They are not the sole aim of these targets, but merely the roadblock on the way to the rest, because this is intended to change the way in which the global economy works and the way in which our people—the British people—are able to live their lives and enjoy their futures. It is intended to erode our liberties so that a few rich men in Beijing and Moscow can enjoy their stolen goods and make sure that they sleep at night.

That is not acceptable. We were not elected to this place and charged with being here to sacrifice the freedoms of the British people to a couple of despots in Beijing or Moscow. Standing up with our allies and friends around the world is exactly what we should be doing, but again, this is not just about them, because the techniques that we are seeing in Taiwan and Ukraine are spreading here.

Today, like every day, businesses and individuals in Taipei and across the island will be the subject of quite literally millions of cyber-attacks. They are under such intense assault that it is very difficult to understand how many routine operations can continue, and yet they do. We are seeing the same type of assaults here in the UK—not the same volume, but the same type—and we therefore have a lot to learn from Taiwan in how it resists. The same is true in Ukraine, where we are seeing Russia learning a whole new way of doing warfare by interrupting everything from the electricity grid to the communications networks in order to undermine the capability of the state and society to hold together.

But we are also seeing that here in the UK and that brings me to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton so rightly made. We are seeing an erosion of our own freedoms here in the UK, and not just through the dirty money that the Foreign Affairs Committee has been so clear in calling out since 2018. Indeed, I see on the Opposition Front Bench the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), who was on the Foreign Affairs Committee at the time—promotion for some!

We have been calling this out for a long time because it is fundamentally undermining the prosperity and happiness of the British people. We are seeing properties being over-inflated in value. We are seeing assets being used to undermine us, not to support us. We are seeing assets of community value—football teams and businesses—being used effectively as a piggybank from which cash can be removed on future occasions for pay for operations on behalf of a state that thinks nothing of attempting to murder the Prime Minister of Montenegro, actually murdering a citizen in the United Kingdom using a nuclear substance, using chemical weapons on the streets of Salisbury, blowing up an arms dump in Prague, and threatening literally thousands of people with cold and famine by trafficking them and forcing them into the forests around Belarus to use as weapons against the people of Poland and Lithuania. This is not a co-operative state; it is a hostile state and these are its actions. Here, we need to do more about it. We need to stop the dirty money, which we have called for, but we need to go further, because we are also—this is the tragedy—seeing the erosion of the liberty of some British people. The freedoms that we value are the freedoms that we need to stand for.

Yesterday, sadly, for the 100th or 200th time—I cannot remember how many—I spoke to some students who told me that their debates in their universities were silenced. They said that people were not willing to speak out or to stand up for what they knew was true because they would face the pressure of the Ministry of State Security, China’s enforcement arm, in silencing them in debate here in the UK. I spoke to them about the nature of this interference and they said that sadly it often comes from a fellow student or from a teacher or lecturer who is connected in some way to the state. We are seeing the erosion of the liberty of British citizens and of those who have come here seeking that liberty, whichever country they come from, because we are sadly not robust enough in standing up for it.

We need to close down the Confucius Institutes. They are agencies of a hostile state through the United Front Work Department—an organisation that we in this House have grown used to in recent days because of the works of Christine Lee, who we were all warned about. We have got used to the actions that it has been taking in seeking influence, in the most extraordinary propaganda operation that the world has ever seen, and we have got used to the pernicious effect on our own community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton spoke about the theft of intellectual property—some of it, sadly, intellectual property that should remain secret. She is absolutely right. Defending state secrets is, after all, an essential role of government. But defending the liberty of British people to study and learn ideas of any kind, of any form, in a free environment at a university or a school, is surely even more fundamental than that. We must maintain absolute freedom of our people to express their views, whether on Tibet, as my hon. Friend did, on the status of Hong Kong, or, as officials in Beijing did only the other day, on the status of the Falkland Islands. They can express their views however they wish. Silencing debate undermines us and erodes freedom. It also erodes our path to the future.

Let me tell the House why I am still optimistic, despite that catalogue of crimes that I think have been committed against us. When I look forward, I see beacons like Taiwan as a demonstration that, actually, free people choose freedom. I see an example showing that Chinese society and culture, in different forms, are intrinsically at home with liberty. I see the writings in the universal declaration of human rights—written by an ambassador from China, P.C. Chang—and I see the rights that are literally encoded in the fundamental documents of the international community. I therefore see the hope that the attempts of the Chinese state—the Communist party—to silence these people will eventually fail, because they will.

What we are seeing coming out of Taiwan is another example of why those attempts will fail. Many people will know that TSMC, the Taiwanese semiconductor chip manufacturer, constitutes an extraordinary demonstration of innovation and capability on the island. It is a fantastic example of the meeting of science and craft, in that it brings together the skills of innovation and the skills of creation. I think it fair to say that it is now one of the keystones of the global economy. Delays caused to its output by various water issues and other problems had a direct effect on the manufacturing of cars and kettles, even here in the UK. It is essential to our global economy, and it is telling that its extraordinary success is based on the free ideas and the creativity that are needed—or, rather, can only be achieved—in a free society. This is a very good reminder that liberty does not just feed the soul; it feeds the pocket, and it feeds prosperity for everyone.

We see people around the world making choices. We see the migrant routes out of various parts of the world, and we see where those migrants go. There are not that many who think that China or Russia is a good idea, but there are many who choose freedom in countries such ours. When I see the threats that are ranged before us, I feel that what we are seeing coming out of Beijing today, and what we are seeing coming out of Moscow today, is much more in keeping with Shakespeare’s King Lear than with Henry V.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am reluctant to intervene on a substantial speech in a field about which my hon. Friend is very knowledgeable. May I suggest, however, that the principal challenge for any Government when it comes to foreign affairs is fundamentally to deal with the world as it is, while also working for the world that we would wish for, and without inadvertently making it worse in so doing?

If my hon. Friend agrees with me on that point, does he also agree that the status quo in the constitutional position of the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, has actually enabled it to flourish in its evolution as a peaceful and successful democracy, within which its relationship with us has strengthened considerably over recent time? Does he agree that in all of this, our shared values help to shape that relationship—and the fact that we are at the scoping stage of a Westminster Foundation for Democracy programme in Taiwan is one example of this—but that we should do nothing that might inadvertently trigger a reaction by China that would be good neither for the Chinese nor for us, and considering changing the name of their representation in the UK would be precisely such a measure?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I entirely respect my hon. Friend’s position. As he knows, we have had many discussions on a similar basis and on a similar note outside this place. He is right that we have to deal with the world as it is and gently encourage it to be the world that it should be—it is safe to say that neither of us is a revolutionary. The work that my hon. Friend does with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is so important, because it builds on the essential liberty of people and on the fundamental principle that P. C. Chang embedded into the universal declaration of human rights: that of respect for individual choice and that a community should be able to choose its own destiny.

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not for me to tell the Republic of China (Taiwan) how it wishes to name itself and what it wishes to choose, but nor is it for Beijing. It is for the people on the island of Taiwan to decide for themselves how they wish to shape their future. We here recognise that principle not just in overseas jurisdictions such as the Falkland Islands; we even recognised it in 2014 in respect of part of our integral United Kingdom. Although my hon. Friend and I were on the same side of the argument then and some on the Opposition Benches were on the other side, we all recognised the sovereignty of the people of these islands to choose the shape of their liberty and the way in which they expressed the community to which they felt they belonged. If we recognised that freedom even when it hurt us most and when it cost us dearest, why should we not recognise it for people who have absolutely the same inherent rights as anybody on these islands and have, indeed, demonstrated time and again that they have not only the capability but the will to express their freedom through democracy and to choose leaders whom we sometimes like and sometimes do not? Surely it is up to them, not up to Beijing.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but of course it is important to realise that Taiwan’s excellent President has deliberately avoided making any call for independence. The House should reflect on that in terms of our own position.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why I repeat my statement: it is not for me to change the name of the representative of the island here, but it is for me to recognise that the people of that island have the right to choose.

We can, at this point, get into a different debate about Lithuania. I pay huge tribute to Mr Landsbergis, Lithuania’s Foreign Minister, for his courage in standing up against the bullying of Beijing. He has demonstrated that many larger countries that currently bow down and pretend they do not have a choice actually do have a choice. Lithuania may have a great past in which it was a huge grand duchy, but the reality of the size of the state today is that it is not one of the P5. Yet Lithuania has taken the courageous decision to defend itself.

I will close my speech with this last point: over the past four or five years we have seen an evolution of pressure on us and others around the world that is undermining democracy, that is eroding our freedoms and that imperils our economic future. This is a choice for us all. The decision to stand with free peoples in Taiwan and Ukraine is about standing up for our own liberties and freedoms. That is why the House is right to push for it and the Government are right to back it.

13:28

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) on securing this important debate.

Taiwan has made significant progress while the People’s Republic of China has stalled. While China remains an authoritarian state, shrouded in secrecy and frequently accused of human rights abuses, Taiwan has taken the necessary steps to grow into something much more aligned with our modern-day values. Taiwan enjoys high levels of press freedom, unlike the PRC; has committed to important climate goals that are more ambitious than the PRC’s; and has built an inclusive and tolerant society. Taiwan has freedom of religious belief and is the only country in Asia to have legalised LGBTQ+ marriage.

Such extensive reforms mean that Taiwan is now categorised as a full democracy, ranking as the No. 1 democracy in Asia and the 11th worldwide, according to The Economist’s democracy index. It is impressive progress and further illustrates that Taiwan deserves, and has earned, a seat at the table.

Continuing to support Taiwan’s participation in international forums with only observer status is no longer enough. We should be leading from the front on the issue, not only by calling for it to be meaningfully included in the United Nations system, but by asking the international community to join us in those calls. With its rich cultural diversity and policy expertise, there is much it could contribute if it were allowed to. For example, its national health insurance scheme is internationally recognised as a model national healthcare system with good accessibility and national coverage, yet it is still excluded from the World Health Assembly.

As the seventh-largest economy in Asia, and the 21st globally, strong trade ties between the UK and Taiwan would be economically hugely mutually beneficial. Being Scottish, it would be remiss of me not to highlight the value of Scotch whisky. In 2020, it was the fourth-largest international market for the drink. In that year, the value of Scottish goods exports to Taiwan was about £206 million, which is the second-highest region in the UK as defined by Department for International Trade statistics. From a moral perspective, it would exemplify our core trading principles of democracy and human rights.

Strengthening our diplomatic ties would serve to strengthen defence and security measures too. China continues to modernise its military. The Government admit that

“China’s…growing international assertiveness will pose an increasing risk to UK interests.”

China has made flagrant incursions into Taiwan’s waters and airspace in a way that could be defined as aggressive.

I am cautious of conflating two different issues, but it is difficult to set aside the current political context of the tension on the borders of Ukraine. President Xi Jinping has given President Putin his support in his campaign against an expansion of NATO, which further aligns the two nations in the face of tension with the west. Although there are clear differences between Ukraine and Taiwan in their history, current political climate and hypothetical international responses, the basic issue of sovereignty remains at the heart of both. As long as Russia and China align themselves, the world will wonder what there is to gain and why China is watching what happens in Ukraine so closely.

The Government take the stance that relations in the Taiwan strait should be resolved through constructive dialogue and that it is not the UK’s place to intervene unnecessarily, but we should recognise the benefits of supporting Taiwan’s future development and take the steps to do it. The Government should not support the oppression of any independent states by authoritarian Governments whether proactively or, as is the case here, passively. I look forward to hearing the Minister set out the Government’s position on the continuing co-operation and friendship between the UK and Taiwan.

13:33

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As the chair of the British-Taiwanese all-party parliamentary group, of course I have become concerned at the growing intimidation that the country is experiencing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) outlined so well. Taiwan is one of the UK’s most stalwart supporters and trading partners, and it donated more than 1 million masks to our NHS during the covid crisis, which is a very decent thing to do.

We have already heard that about 23.5 million people live in Taiwan. We have also heard that it is a fully functioning democracy. It has a very good record of holding free and fair elections and there has not been much time since it started doing so. When those elections occur, and one party loses, the transfer of power is pretty smooth, which is not often the case in many other countries in Asia.

We have also heard that, diplomatically, Taiwan is banned from United Nations membership. We chucked it out—it was us. We effectively chucked it out of the Security Council; that is the end of it. I understand why it happened, but we were part of that movement. It has also been expelled from the observer status it held in the World Health Organisation. Again, the medical teams it sends out when there is a disaster are world beating. Those teams are first rate.

China consistently opposes anything Taiwan does. For instance, it refuses to accept Taiwanese passports and denies entry to any international forum where it has influence—and that is quite a lot of them now. Economically, China is perfectly willing to accept Taiwanese money to invest in the country, but it refuses to accept or allow any other commercial activity from the island. At the same time, we have heard from many other hon. Members that Taiwan is under constant and unmitigated cyber-attack from China, reaching into every aspect of Taiwanese society.

There is now a large British business presence in Taiwan; UK investment in Taiwan reached £450 million in 2020, covering a wide range of sectors, from financial services to pharmaceuticals, from information and communications technology to offshore wind. As we have Scottish representatives here, I must say that Taiwan whisky was voted the world’s best three years running: there is currently Kavalan in my office and I very much enjoy it. [Interruption.] Is that an intervention from my good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)? No? Let me carry on.

Currently, I gather, British companies are investing in 1,307 projects in Taiwan. We have also heard that in September last year, Taiwan submitted its application to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. We are planning to join that too, and I very much hope the Minister will confirm that we would support Taiwan’s membership.

Militarily—I have looked at this quite a lot over the past few years—the Chinese People’s Liberation Army is having its defence expenditure increased by about 10% a year, year on year. It is reorganising. My hon. Friend the Member for—

[Tom Tugendhat]

Tonbridge and Malling.

[Bob Stewart]

Dear me, I am so sorry. I should know that. It is not far away. He made the point that the army is reorganising for expeditionary warfare, meaning amphibious landings, even though Taiwan is 100 miles away. I am particularly worried about the way the islands and atolls, which we have not mentioned, in the South China sea are being colonised—and I do use that word, colonised. They are being occupied, expanded and militarised. In truth, they are well outside China’s traditional area of interest. The Chinese intention is clear: to make the whole South China sea national waters of China.

In the air, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force crossed the median line of the Taiwan strait 950 times in 2021, a 150% increase in air activity over the previous year. Since 1 January, I gather there have been 143 intrusions in just over a month. It particularly worries me that the No. 1 openly expressed aim of Chinese policy is to take back Taiwan. Indeed, Peter Dutton, the Defence Minister of Australia, has openly declared that he believes the Chinese will be going into Taiwan very soon. What does “going into Taiwan” mean? To me, it could mean a military invasion. So there is a growing and present threat to Taiwan from mainland China, and of course that should worry us. It worries us because 40% of the world’s trade transits through the South China sea. What happens in those crucial trade groups must be of great concern to us.

As a soldier I served in Hong Kong. I thought it was a great place, fabulous. It used to share our values of civil liberty, democracy and the rule of law, but recently all that is fast disappearing. In the region, Taiwan remains a beacon of democracy. It also has huge strategic importance. I believe it is in the frontline of the global struggle to resist authoritarian efforts to undermine human rights, the rule of law and freedom of speech, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling outlined much better than I could. I agree that it is very good news that Taiwan that has now legalised LGBTQ marriage. It is the only country in Asia that has, by the way.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I am enormously grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. What he is putting so well is the very many shared values we have with Taiwan, the sort of freedom, openness and innovation that the people of Hong Kong used to enjoy as well. That is surely a template for what the Chinese Communist party would like to do with Taiwan if ever it had the opportunity to do so. Does he share my great fear? The great design of President Xi, as he has made no pretence of hiding, is what he calls the reunification of China, which could only mean bringing the freedom-loving and freedom-enjoying people of Taiwan under the jackboot of the Chinese Communist party, and inflict on them the same form of intimidation and oppression the people of Tibet, Xinjiang and now the people of Hong Kong are sadly seeing?

[Bob Stewart]

My very good and hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have said in the Chamber before that if China was to develop a model much like Taiwan, it would be to the benefit of China. Taiwan is the beacon. It is a hugely successful economy. It is good news that there are some 13,000 Taiwanese students in British universities, with 4,000 at postgraduate level. By way of return, which I think is very interesting, there are an increasing number of British students studying in Taiwan. They are mainly learning Mandarin, of course.

[Alicia Kearns]

Earlier, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee rightly raised Confucius Institutes. Members may not know that the country with the highest number of Confucius Institutes per head of population is Scotland. That should be of grave concern. Does my right hon. Friend think that, given that Taiwanese people speak Mandarin and write a higher level of more ancient Chinese, we could perhaps look to them to provide more education in Mandarin in this country? Let me make one other quick point on drawing comparisons. Does he find it interesting that the Chinese Government have felt the need to sanction both Taiwanese and British parliamentarians? How shameful it is that they continue to attack our democracies.

[Bob Stewart]

The answer to both of my hon. Friend’s questions is yes and yes. I totally agree. I note that President Tsai Ing-wen has committed Taiwan to having Mandarin and English as dual official languages within eight years, which is tremendous.

I am conscious of time, and I have banged on for longer than I thought I would. [Hon. Members: “Never!”] I always do, for far too long. In summary, we and all people in the world who think like us should do everything we can to defend the democracy and values of Taiwan. Its security challenges and survival as a thriving, successful model mean a great deal to us and to the world.

13:45

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) very much for her excellent introduction to the debate. The contributions so far have been enlightening. I must also thank the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for his contribution. On most occasions, he and I are on the same page on almost everything. I noted his comment about whiskey and understand that Bushmills whiskey from Northern Ireland is one of the best sellers in Taiwan, so perhaps we have strong economic relations as well.

[Bob Stewart]

I assure the hon. Member, who is a very good friend, that I also have Black Bush—a Northern Irish whiskey—in my office and have always had a sample of it for 35 years.

[Jim Shannon]

I am not surprised—by the way, I suspect that it is half-empty. [Interruption.] Perhaps more than half. In seriousness, the debate is about strengthening the ties between Taiwan and the UK, and I am proud to be associated with Taiwan, which is a bastion of freedom in an oppressed area. Taiwan stands out clearly to me, to all those who have spoken and to all who will speak after as a bastion of democracy and liberty. Information kindly provided to me highlights that, since the 1980s, Taiwan has overseen democratic reforms. Significantly, in 2020, it rose 20 places in The Economist democracy index to 11th worldwide, which shows its commitment to liberty, freedom and democracy.

Taiwan ranks as the No. 1 democracy in Asia, with The Economist describing it as 2020’s “star performer” and upgrading it to the “full democracy” category. It is in the interests of the UK and all liberal democracies to promote peace and stability in the region, especially as the UK increases its level of engagement with the Indo-Pacific region and aims to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. It seems to me, as Member of Parliament for Strangford and on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, that our relationship with Taiwan is incredibly good and perhaps we can build on it.

In building a network of liberty, Taiwan has become the frontline of democracy against China’s expanding authoritarianism, and I stand with Taiwan in that aim. I absolutely love the Olympics and follow it every morning, looking for those medals to come—so far, they have not, but we live in hope—but I watch our great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland team at the Winter Olympics in the knowledge of China’s ongoing treatment of the Uyghurs, the Christians, the Tibetans and the Falun Gong practitioners. My friend the Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), and I have spoken about this very issue on many occasions and, whether it is in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall, we are on the same page. It concerns me greatly that China’s expansionism and imperialistic goals are at the expense of those Christians and other ethnic minorities. We see those who happen to have a different religious outlook or view on the world subjected to commercial-level organ transplantation.

Although we are focusing on UK-Taiwan friendship and co-operation today, I am conscious that at the same time there is an axis of evil, to which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton referred: Russia, China, Iran and North Korea—four countries, two of which are trying to perfect nuclear power and two of which already have. I am incredibly worried about that. For instance, I understand that in the last week Iran has perfected a missile that can travel 900 miles; North Korea is trying to do the same, although Russia and China are certainly behind on the expertise. But if those missiles can reach 900 miles, they can strike at the heart of Israel and other western countries in the middle east. As the hon. Lady mentioned, the axis of evil shows that we need to have a steely reserve. Although we have seen some of that, I am not sure that we have seen enough. Quite honestly, we need to strike fear into the axis of evil to ensure that those countries understand that if they do something out of place, we will be in a position to strike back with the same intensity.

Way back in 2012 and 2013, I took part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I have always remembered our visit to Kenya, because the roads built in Kenya in 2012 and 2013—and probably before—were built by the Chinese. The Chinese influence goes far beyond the far east to the middle east, Africa and South America, with China using vast amounts of finance to encourage countries to withdraw their allegiance or political support for Taiwan. Again, China is core to that axis of evil.

When I see a nation like Taiwan, it is beyond difficult for me to understand how we could not do everything possible to strengthen the relationship—not simply to benefit our nation, but to support democracy in Taiwan. In the military sphere, there is a greater role for the UK to co-ordinate with the US, Japan and Australia, as it tilts to the Indo-Pacific. It is essential that Taiwan is a part of that delicate balance. We must ensure that Taiwan knows that we are on its page and are there to support it.

Over the course of 2021, there were 950 intrusions by People’s Liberation Army Air Force military planes into the Taiwan zone, which is an 150% increase on the 380 sorties recorded in 2020. In January 2022, there were 143 intrusions within 24 days. There is a consistent and worrying build-up in such cases. Looking at the aircraft that China is sending in gives us an idea that its intentions could well be destruction, evil and murder. The military aircraft used in these activities include, but are not limited to: the H-6 strategic bomber; JH-7 fighter jets; reconnaissance models; and the Y-9 electronic warfare aircraft. Those are all part of the influence of that country.

It is clear that things are escalating, and our support for Taiwan is necessary not simply from the perspective of military aid, but because we rely on Taiwan to be able to carry out its business. For instance, Taiwan is estimated to account for a fifth of global chip manufacturing and half of all cutting-edge capacity. Our dependence on Taiwan is important for us in the free world—not just for us here in the UK, but for everyone. Any action that could impact Taiwan’s production and disrupt that vital global supply chain would be of concern to the UK and the whole world.

Total trade in goods and services—exports plus imports—between the UK and Taiwan was £8 billion in the four quarters to the end of quarter 3, 2021. That was an increase of 14.4% or £999 million on the four quarters to the end of quarter 3, 2020. Our trade with Taiwan is important and growing, and can continue to grow. Taiwanese companies have invested in 222 projects in the United Kingdom. British companies have invested in a total of 1,307 projects in Taiwan.

We already have a clear and vital relationship, which we can—and must—build on. The message from this House today is clear from me, my party and as part of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: we stand with Taiwan, be assured of that. We are committed to Taiwan physically, emotionally, financially and culturally, and we hope that economically we can grow. We must not allow the independence of this stalwart nation to be overcome. Rather than lament the further erosion of democracy, now is the time to strengthen mutually beneficial ties, and to keep an eye on the long game. We are in the business of the long game, and we have got to get it right.

00:00

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on leading this debate today to discuss British-Taiwanese relations. It is a true friend to our country, and it is high time that we discussed it on the Floor of the House. Taiwan is a beacon of liberty, freedom and democracy in a region of the world overshadowed by a larger neighbour that has demonstrated, time and again, total disregard for human rights and freedoms.

The United Kingdom shares a deep and enduring relationship with Taiwan. Taiwan is a true friend to the United Kingdom. We share the same values. We enjoy close bilateral co-operation, and Taiwan is one of our most significant trading partners. Taiwan is exactly the kind of sovereign, forward-looking, collaborative nation that global Britain should be forging stronger ties with. Now that Britain is free of the constraints of the European Union, I urge the Minister for Asia, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), to make it one of her priorities.

From its exemplary response to the handling of the coronavirus pandemic, to its pioneering work in technology, Taiwan is a country to emulate and one that the United Kingdom should certainly be working together with much more closely. In contrast, the People’s Republic of China is, to be clear, a totalitarian, anti-democratic, communist state that continues its threatening campaign of fear and intimidation against the people of Taiwan.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I agree completely with what my hon. Friend is saying. Taiwan is one of the great success stories of the far east. It has a multicultural liberal democracy, a growing economy, fantastic trade and many political freedoms and press freedoms. It is superbly championed worldwide, not least by the excellent Taipei representative in London. Does my hon. Friend agree that Taiwan should be celebrated and not threatened?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Taiwan is a model of a country that has succeeded against all the odds. It is a nation that should be upheld as a great example of what can be achieved in a part of the world where there are so many failing countries. Taiwan has bucked the trend and proved that it can be successful, so I hope that in this House today we will celebrate Taiwan and all its achievements.

In 2022, the behaviour by the People’s Republic of China, and how it threatens Taiwan, is completely unacceptable, and the United Kingdom must stand shoulder to shoulder with Taiwan. I hope that today in this House we can restate our strong friendship and commitment to Taiwan and the magnificent Taiwanese people. For me, it has always felt wrong that the United Kingdom does not have any formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan and no official embassy while, at the same time, China can use economic leverage to bludgeon other states to cut ties with Taiwan.

It was our former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who visited Taiwan in 1992 and hailed Taiwan’s rapid democratisation and the Taiwanese miracle. She recognised Taiwan for what it still is: an example of how freedom has triumphed. Some years later, in 2013, the Taiwanese ambassador’s exclusion from Lady Thatcher’s funeral at St Paul’s Cathedral—decided by the Cabinet Office, I have to say, and despite my personal efforts and appeals to Ministers at that time—was a stark demonstration of the vindictive effect of China’s insistence that Taiwan should be completely excluded from any kind of diplomatic representation.

The Chinese Communist party operates indirectly, cutting off Taiwan’s support networks and isolating it diplomatically. It cannot be right to force a country such as Taiwan, which, to all intents and purposes, is an independent, democratic, sovereign state, to operate permanently under the terms of another hostile country. The CCP should not be able to dictate Taiwan’s bilateral relations with any other state in a world where self-determination of peoples is something that we all expect, or so I thought. It is a right. It is time that the western democracies looked afresh at the policy of not allowing Taiwan the diplomatic presence it needs and truly deserves.

I pay tribute to the work of His Excellency Ambassador Kelly, and his incredible and dedicated team who operate the Taipei representative office in London, for building ever stronger relations with the United Kingdom. If ever there was an example of an ambassador who works extremely hard to build a relationship with our country, it is Ambassador Kelly. I thank him for all he does to build those friendships and relationships with the peoples of this United Kingdom. I thank his staff for all their work with parliamentarians on both sides of the House, particularly the British-Taiwanese all-party group; they do a magnificent job. As vice-chairman of the all-party group, and indeed president of Conservative Friends of Taiwan, I am proud to have worked with Ambassador Kelly and all his predecessors for around three decades, ever since the Free Chinese Centre existed in London way back in the 1980s. My friendship with Taiwan goes back all that way, and I am very proud of it.

I have had the honour of visiting Taiwan on many occasions. My first visit was in 1998, when I was there as chairman of the International Young Democrat Union, the global right-of-centre youth organisation. I worked closely with the Kuomintang, which was then in power. More recently, in 2017, I led a delegation of the UK Parliament to Taiwan through the all-party group. I was privileged to meet President Tsai Ing-wen, Taiwan’s very own Iron Lady, who takes no nonsense from Beijing, and rightly so. I also recently met the Deputy Foreign Minister of Taiwan during his visit to London just prior to Christmas.

It is clear that dialogue and diplomacy are the greatest tools in our arsenal to support the people of Taiwan, and it is essential that we continue these exchanges. I commend and support my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee—so ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who spoke earlier in this debate—and I wish them Godspeed as they visit Taiwan in a couple of weeks. I am only sorry that I will not be joining them on this occasion, but I have visited many times and hope to do so again.

Today, China casts a long red shadow over Taiwan. I believe it is our duty to stand with Taiwan alongside the United States of America, our European allies and our friends in the Asia-Pacific region, India, Australia and Japan, to defend the freedom of the Taiwanese people against any possible aggression that threatens Taiwan’s democratic way of life. The crackdown in Hong Kong shows China’s willingness to repudiate democracy and install its own authoritarian rule, despite international condemnation and opposition, so we must treat any assault on Taiwan as a direct assault on our own liberal democracy. We cannot walk by on the other side; we must stand with Taiwan. We must also ensure that the light of democracy shines through. Indeed, the white sun of the Taiwanese flag reminds us that the ideals of liberty and freedom must always prevail.

Strengthening our relationship further will send an unambiguous signal to China that aggression will not be tolerated. In this vein, I ask the Minister: why should Taiwan not be allowed to participate in the World Health Organisation, Interpol and the different bodies within the United Nations, including the International Civil Aviation Organisation? I hope that Taiwan, together with us, will be joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—two great free trading nations joining together—and why not observer membership of the Commonwealth? We have heard already about English becoming a dual common language of Taiwan, so why not at least observer status in the Commonwealth? Would that not be a great symbol of friendship between Britain, the Commonwealth and the people of Taiwan?

This is the 21st century, and Taiwan’s exclusion is shocking and, quite frankly, dangerous. Taiwan demonstrated its value early in 2020. It raised concerns that covid-19 could be spread through person-to-person transmission before the People’s Republic of China did, yet that is where the virus originated. The implementation of a virus screening programme for international arrivals meant that the coronavirus was contained without resorting to full lockdowns. The world should have learnt from Taiwan in those early days of the pandemic, but not being part of the WHO, its early warning was downplayed. This example illustrates that these are crucial organisations that Taiwan should be involved in, for the benefit of its own people, for their safety and security, and the rest of the world, too. Why should it not be there, participating as a player in that organisation?

We need Taiwan to play its part in the exchange of ideas and to share its technical knowledge and expertise. The people of Taiwan also demonstrated their commitment to the friendship with the United Kingdom when they donated 1 million surgical masks to our NHS at a time of critical need. They have our gratitude, which demonstrates the character and virtue of the close ties with Taiwan.

The United Kingdom must now focus on developing a free exchange of goods and ideas, technological innovation, mutual support and co-operation with our Taiwanese friends. There should be no reason why Britain should not also quickly pursue a free trade agreement with Taiwan, so let us make that a priority in the coming years. Free trade and democracy will continue to bind us together and strengthen a dynamic, forward-looking relationship with Taiwan, as we seize the new opportunities for collaboration that I believe lie before us.

Let me conclude by wishing the people of Taiwan good fortune, good health and prosperity for the lunar new year. In this the year of the tiger, let us this day send the people of Taiwan a clear and unambiguous message that they have and will continue to have the steadfast and unwavering support of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

14:09

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) on securing this important debate, and thank everyone who has spoken in it. Taiwan, though it may not be large, is very important economically—a point that has been made—morally and politically, because it developed into a flourishing, genuine, established democracy at a time when many countries in the region went in the opposite direction. It is a peaceful democracy that makes no aggressive territorial claims on its neighbours and poses no threat to any of them. That, of course, is in great contrast to those who make aggressive territorial claims on Taiwan. That is why we should stand foursquare in support of Taiwan. We ought to be supportive of those who embrace values of democracy and freedom, and who wish to co-exist peacefully with others, secure prosperity for themselves, and contribute to the greater global good, which is what Taiwan has always sought to do.

I declare my interest as a member of the British-Taiwanese all-party parliamentary group. I, too, have had the pleasure of visiting it, and have met many Taiwanese representatives when they have come here, and I, too, salute the work of Ambassador Kelly and the Taipei representative office in the UK. He and his predecessors—we have had a number of representatives over the years—have done great work for their country, and to improve our relations.

I appreciate that the exclusion of Taiwan from many international organisations is unjust, unfair and unhelpful to the greater good. Changing that is not unilaterally in this country’s gift, but I hope that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will continue to make the case for that, and to seek to build a coalition with our democratic allies and partners in order to achieve that objective. We have to be persistent on that. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we must never give up hope that decency and freedom will ultimately prevail against the forces of darkness, which are unfortunately in coalition against us.

I want to talk about the importance of Taiwan’s evolution; under Chiang Kai-shek, in the early days of the Kuomintang, it was a frankly autocratic society that did not always respect the rule of law, though there was nothing like the appalling behaviour on mainland China after the civil war. Taiwan was able to move away from that without disruption or violence. It became a functioning democracy that respects the rule of law and has established a vibrant, independent judiciary and legal framework. When I had the pleasure of visiting Taiwan, I had the honour of meeting President Tsai, whom I greeted as a fellow alumnus of the London School of Economics, where she did a doctorate of philosophy in law; she trained as a lawyer.

Taiwan has developed a vigorous and robust legal system. Since the 1990s, it has increasingly asserted the independence of the judiciary from the other arms of the state. In fact, the independent justice movement of the 1990s was one of the beacons that led to the democratisation of Taiwan’s society. Many of its leading lights were lawyers and jurists. That demonstrates the importance internationally of commitment to independent judges, courts and lawyers, and the rule of law. Taiwan has moved in exactly the direction that we should encourage others to take.

It is interesting that, since 2002, Taiwan has moved from having an inquisitorial system in criminal cases to something much closer to the adversarial system with which we in common-law countries are familiar—a system in which both sides have the right to be represented by counsel. I hope that we will continue to use the fact that we are the birthplace of common law and of that adversarial criminal justice system to try to assist Taiwan and build bridges. I hope that we can encourage British lawyers to develop partnerships with Taiwanese lawyers, and can build on the work of our further education contacts. The President is a great example of that, and of soft power. I hope, too, that we can encourage the work of the British Council, whose representatives I had the pleasure of meeting in Taipei, because it is an important means of developing those contacts, which we do not always make enough of.

Taiwan has undertaken further reforms in this field. In 2006, it abolished the regrettable mandatory death penalty for certain classes of offence, which it inherited in the days immediately after the war. In fact, there has been an almost complete cessation in the use of the death penalty in recent years, with one unfortunate exception, and there is still a vigorous and active campaign to support that change.

In 2009, Taiwan ratified the international covenant on civil and political rights and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, which sets it apart from those who aggressively assert claims against it. A threshold for joining those covenants was an acceptance that Taiwan was on an

“irrevocable path towards complete eradication of the death penalty.”

Moving forward, we see a progressive and, in the proper sense, small-l liberal polity and system, which we ought to be supporting.

It is important to recognise, as has already been observed, the progress that Taiwan has made in relation to same-sex marriages and equal rights for LGBT communities. Generally, it has a good position, compared with many of its neighbours, on the index of commitment to the rule of law. That is something we should continue to sustain. As we go forward, I hope we can build upon those links.

Contrast has been made frequently to what has sadly happened in Hong Kong. I have had the pleasure of visiting that jurisdiction too, and it is a sadness to me, as when I read law at the London School of Economics a number of my colleagues went on to qualify as barristers in the United Kingdom, before returning to practice at the Hong Kong Bar. Some went on to hold distinguished office in the Hong Kong judiciary. They did so at a time when they still had the protection of the agreements we had entered into to ensure Hong Kong’s independent legal system. Sadly, those have been unliterally abrogated by the Government of the People’s Republic of China. I never want to see that happen to the legal system in Taiwan. I privately weep, almost, for some of my friends who stayed in their country, but who now see their freedom of action and manoeuvre as lawyers increasingly constrained, and a stranglehold put on what was once the most vibrant and successful legal and judicial system to be found in that part of south-east Asia. We must not let that happen to Taiwan.

That is why not only shall we stand four-square with the Taiwanese in political and moral terms, but, where necessary, without seeking to start aggression, we will ensure that military and naval force is available to deter aggression by others, and we will work closely with our allies, including Australia and others in that area. If we believe in democracy, the importance of the rule of law, human rights and personal freedoms, Taiwan is a beacon that we shall support.

It is important that we have this debate and we place this motion on the record. As a country, we have always sought to assert these things, sometimes with more success than at other times, but they are basically in our DNA. With the dispensation we have now in Taiwan, that is something we share with the Taiwanese people, who have worked hard to achieve that, at real sacrifice to themselves, over the years. It is important that we reassert our commitment to stand by them, against those who seek to snuff out the lights of freedom and justice. We must never allow that to happen.

14:18

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing this important debate.

I genuinely consider it an honour and a pleasure to be speaking on my party’s behalf in this debate. Before we had decided I would do so, I had already asked to speak in the debate, having visited Taiwan as part of an international youth culture and study tour back in 2013—believe it or not, I still qualified under the term “youth” at that stage—along with my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley). We had a wonderful two-week official visit and then some of us stayed on for a number of days to further experience the culture and landscapes of Taiwan, across Taipei, Taichung and Tainan. So it is a wonderful opportunity to take part in the debate today.

One of the most important aspects of this debate is democracy and the principle of self-determination. Hugh MacDiarmid once wrote of Robert Burns:

“Mair nonsense has been uttered in his name than in ony’s, barrin liberty and Christ.”

The same, in some senses, could be said about self-determination, so lest it become a buzzword, let us remind ourselves of exactly what that means: it is a group of people’s right to determine how and by whom they wish to be governed. What that means in practice is that when we stand with Ukraine against Russian aggression, we stand for self-determination. When the UK reminds Argentina about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, we are standing for self-determination. When the Scottish Government assert that Scots deserve the right to have a say in our future by voting for a pro-independence Government, as they did last year, we are asserting our right to self-determination. We do not get to pick and choose who is allowed self-determination. The whole principle is that we accept that when the people choose what they want as their course for the future. Therefore, if we accept that Ukraine has self-determination, and that the Falklands has it, Scotland has it and so does Taiwan. No ifs, and no buts.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s views about self-determination, but would he accept that both the Falkland Islands and Scotland have had referendums in recent years? The people of Taiwan have never had a referendum, but perhaps they should. If they had a referendum, they could determine their own destiny.

[Owen Thompson]

Where I would agree with the hon. Gentleman is that if the people of Taiwan wanted to have a referendum—and it is entirely a matter for the people of Taiwan—I would be 100% behind it. I think people would be astonished to find any disagreement about that among SNP Members. However, self-determination is not a one-time event, one vote and that is the end of it; self-determination is an ongoing process. That is why the SNP believes that an important consideration in determining how Taiwan is governed is what the people of Taiwan want, and how they express those desires at the ballot box.

Viewers in Scotland will already be well acquainted with the double standards of the UK Government when it comes to Scottish self-determination, but at times the Government also fall short of honouring that important principle when it comes to Taiwan. The UK does not recognise Taiwan enough and, as we have heard, there are no formal diplomatic relations with the island. That is something that could be simply looked at and corrected.

[John Nicolson]

It has been deeply heartening to hear so many Conservatives throughout this debate champion the idea of self-determination. Given that there is no international court of arbitration to determine self-determination for countries such as Tibet, is it not all the more important for countries such as the UK to stand up, and for their Governments to be not cowardly but outspoken in supporting those peoples?

[Owen Thompson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is critical that the UK Government lead by example. If we say that we support the right of people to choose, we must demonstrate that we support the right of people to choose. An SNP-led independent Scotland would support Taiwanese accession to multilateral organisations such as the World Health Organisation, recognising Taiwanese wishes to be an active and co-operative global player. Our friendship runs deep and goes beyond the principles of democracy and how we practise it.

We have already heard from many about the huge democratic reforms that have taken place in Taiwan from the ’80s through to the current day, and about the major progress that now sees Taiwan highlighted as a star performer and the No.1 democracy in Asia. However, Taiwan’s deepening democracy chimes with the Scottish Government’s agenda, with both Scotland and Taiwan seeking to broaden and deepen democratic participation. There is a lot we can learn from each other, such as Taiwan’s world-leading efforts to leverage technology and citizen participation into a system of digital democracy, which was most recently credited with containing covid in Taiwan.

Speaking of covid, we have heard about Taiwan’s handling of the pandemic and how exemplary it has been, despite its having only observer status rather than full membership of the WHO. When it comes to technology, it cannot be overstated how important the Taiwanese technological sector is for Scotland and the UK. Semiconductor chips—a resource now essential to all our online lifestyles—are overwhelmingly made in Taiwan, so trade link security is vital. The Scottish Government recognised this and opened a virtual Scottish Development International office in Taipei. Scotland has a positive story to tell on trade with Taiwan, and there are many areas of potential growth w full trading powers after independence. To name a few sectors with huge potential for trade and co-operation, we need look no further than the UK’s list of market access ambitions following the 24th annual UK-Taiwan trade talks: energy, offshore wind power, financial services, agriculture and whisky. These are all Scottish specialties.

As a fan of a malt myself, I cannot help but mention that, according to the Scotch Whisky Association, Taiwan was the fourth largest export destination for Scotch whisky by value in 2020, so slàinte to that. I particularly enjoy Taiwanese whisky, which has a very distinct taste—there is a certain sweetness that is not there in some of the single malts from up the road.

Trade opportunities are, of course, supplemented by academic collaboration. Between 7,000 and 8,000 Taiwanese students study in the UK each year, and Taiwan’s aim to become a society that is fully bilingual in English and Mandarin will make collaboration even easier.

The parallels between Scotland and Taiwan, and our shared ambitions, also extend to our climate priorities. The Taiwanese Government have committed to achieving net zero by 2050, with a target of 25% renewable energy by 2025. British Office Taipei has promoted UK offshore wind companies, many from Scotland, to Taiwanese partners. There is also scope for climate co-operation with the Scottish Government’s ScotWind strategy. Scottish Development International is exploring the possibility of a strategic partnership with Taiwan that would allow renewable energy supply chain companies to access the Taiwanese market much more easily.

Among all this, we cannot avoid the elephant in the room. China’s current denial of Taiwan’s right to self-determination and its insistence that Taiwan is merely a stray province of the PRC is a major concern. All this puts Taiwan’s future at risk, and we have a moral obligation in this place to stand against it, as we do to protect the self-determination of all peoples and nations.

Taiwan’s principled moves set an example to Scotland that small states can punch well above their weight. In an increasingly fraught and global world, smaller does not have to mean weaker. We have concerns that the Government’s integrated review makes no mention of Taiwan, and I hope they will correct that omission by reflecting the importance of Taiwan in their China strategy. It is perplexing that Taiwan is not afforded due consideration in the Government’s most recent foreign policy document. I sincerely hope that concern will be seriously considered and acted on.

When I look back at my time in Taiwan, I think of the friends I made from South Africa, Norway, Sweden, St Kitts, Bermuda and across the globe. We had a wonderful time exchanging ideas and thoughts with each other, and these will always be friendships. To the people of Taiwan, I simply say, “Yŏngyuăn de péngyou.”

14:28

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Xièxie, wo men dōu shì péngyou. That was a lovely finish to the speech by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), and I am sure we could all practise our Mandarin.

A big thank you—a big xièxie—to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for, once again, securing an excellent Thursday debate that shows the importance of our Parliament to the Taiwanese Parliament and the Taiwanese people by putting on record our friendship. Our voices come from different political parties, but we are saying broadly the same thing about the importance of the deep and rich friendship between the UK and Taiwan.

Although the UK has no formal diplomatic relationship with Taiwan, we can be proud of the people-to-people relationships, of which we have heard, from people’s different trips according to different themes. Those relationships will transcend politics and diplomacy. We have heard that British and Taiwanese students engage in fruitful and mutually beneficial exchange programmes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) said, our businesses work closely to invest in the technologies of the future. Our doctors and scientists co-operate on how to learn and treat illnesses such as covid, which Taiwan has done so well to handle without the level of death and disruption experienced by so many other countries across the globe.

On a broader level, we can say with some confidence that Taiwan is a beacon of liberty in the Asia-Pacific. It was the first Asian country to recognise same-sex marriage. It is a vibrant and functioning multi-party liberal democracy with a booming tech sector and a free press. It is a recognised global leader in health and education. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) gave us an important lesson in the progress that has been made from the days of the Kuomintang all the way through to today and the exchange that we can now have on the legal practices in the UK and in Taiwan. We also think about the sadness that we all share that, unfortunately, things could be going in reverse in Hong Kong, which is usually such a beacon of legal practice.

There are, however, clear and present challenges facing the people of Taiwan. The Chinese Government have made no attempt to disguise their willingness to use force to occupy Taipei if their persuasion on reunification fails. It is crucial that we use opportunities such as today to underline our resolve to stand with the people of Taiwan in the face of threats to their liberty and way of life, and to put on record our concern regarding the increase in military activity around the waters of Taiwan. We in this House should say with one voice that Taiwan’s future should never be settled by force or coercion.

Members from across the House have given examples of their connections with Taiwan and their friendships, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). I know that the Minister will want to respond in some depth to what has been raised. In particular, will she respond to the points that were made eloquently by the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) about the lack of an overarching strategy for the region? That is really what he was laying out, including the way in which this relates not just to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but goes across education, business and investment and the trade piece, so that we can have a genuinely cohesive strategy in future.

I have four quick questions for the Minister. The first is on Taiwan’s membership of international organisations. We have all mentioned that because when we have a global pandemic, such as the one we have all been through, it is crucial that we can learn from one another. We would all be the first to say that this goes beyond politics or diplomacy: to save lives, we must hear about best practice. That is what we have seen in the health system and the public health approach in Taiwan because of the experience of SARS— severe acute respiratory syndrome—and other public health challenges. It is terrible that it was frozen out of the World Health Assembly and other similar international bodies. Next time it will be a different challenge, but this is my first challenge to the Minister: will she outline the UK’s position on Taiwan’s membership of the World Health Assembly and other organisations? I urge her to join our allies in pressing for Taiwan’s inclusion.

Secondly, on the intimidation and threats facing Taiwan, I welcome the Government’s commitment to standing up for our allies that have a relationship with Taiwan—Lithuania was mentioned. There is a wider issue, however, of Chinese Government aggression aimed at Taiwan and its international relationships. Will the Minister outline the UK’s continued commitment to stand by our allies and protect their trading relationships with Taiwan?

Thirdly, as I have already highlighted, there is Taiwan’s status as a thriving high-tech economy. As the hon. Member for Midlothian commented, much of this somehow links in with Scotland, which is lovely to see: we have heard a lot about whisky but there are also wind farms and other things. Will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to deepen and strengthen these mutually beneficial economic ties? I put on record our support for the Government’s continued desire to link trade with democracy and freedom, which is much more straightforward because we do not have to have difficult conversations about human rights issues.

Finally, will the Minister outline what positive steps are being taken to reaffirm and expand the welcome person-to-person links we have with Taiwan in education, science and business? For example, is the Turing scheme, the Government’s new post-Brexit education push, enjoying much linkage there? Within the strategy that the Government no doubt have, is there a link with Taiwanese universities and education, because clearly education plays a key role in reaffirming our friendship?

Today we have a strong chance to put on record that we stand in friendship with Taiwanese people. Many across the House have visited and have friends there, but even without having visited we can stand on the principle of friendship and an ongoing relationship with a fellow democracy.

14:36

[The Minister for Asia (Amanda Milling)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for securing this debate on UK co-operation with Taiwan. I thank Members from across the House for their insightful contributions. I will do my best to cover as many of the points raised as possible, because it really has been a lengthy and wide-ranging debate.

Members of the House will be aware of the unique nature of the UK’s relationship with Taiwan. We are not represented by an embassy in Taiwan but rather by a British office. Our team there drive forward our unofficial but undoubtedly important relationship with Taiwan. As we have heard, our relations are built on an increasingly wide range of shared economic, scientific and educational interests, and a shared consideration of global challenges around climate and health.

I start by addressing up front the increased tensions in the Taiwan strait, which a number of Members rightly raised. We have seen the significant impact of China’s military modernisation and growing assertiveness across the Indo-Pacific region. The UK has a clear interest in ensuring peace and stability in the Taiwan strait. Without it, the prosperity and security interests of both the UK and our like-minded partners would surely suffer. It is in this context that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have expressed their concerns at the numerous Chinese military flights that have taken place near Taiwan in recent days and months. These flights are not conducive to regional peace. We need a peaceful resolution to the tensions through a constructive dialogue by people on both sides of the strait. We will continue to work with our international partners on this issue. The G7 Foreign and Development communiqué last May underscored the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan strait. Ministers undertook to encourage the peaceful resolution of cross-strait issues. We will continue to prioritise peace and stability in our discussions.

Many Members rightly mentioned trade. Another of our priorities is our trade relationship with Taiwan, which, as many pointed out, is thriving. UK exports to Taiwan rose by 86% between 2016 and 2019. Even last year, as the pandemic took hold, our exports to Taiwan increased by a further quarter. Let me reassure Members that we want to continue to develop that economic relationship, and the Department for International Trade holds annual ministerial trade talks with Taiwan to do just that. The most recent talks were held in October 2021, co-chaired by the Minister for Trade Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt). Those talks deepened the UK’s and Taiwan’s economic and commercial partnerships across a range of areas, and saw progress on market access ambitions including energy and offshore wind power, financial services, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and—I must of course mention this—whisky. Taiwan is the fourth largest market for Scottish whisky by value.

The UK and Taiwan are also partners on climate action. We are increasingly sharing expertise on floating offshore wind and multi-use port development. We also collaborate on skills and workforce planning for the renewable energy sector. UK businesses support Taiwan’s ambition to increase its proportion of renewable energy to 20% by 2025. More than 30 UK offshore wind companies have set up operations in Taiwan. The third UK-Taiwan energy dialogue last year promoted our expertise in decarbonisation and offshore wind, and agreed new areas of co-operation including Taiwan’s commitment to reach net zero by 2050. The dialogue made progress on market access issues affecting UK companies, and our offshore renewable energy Catapult signed a memorandum of understanding with Taiwan’s top research institute to help new partnerships in energy innovation.

Members mentioned education. Taiwan has set out plans to become a bilingual society in Mandarin and English by 2030. The UK, through the British Council, is a natural partner to help advance English language education, teaching and assessment.

Many touched on support for Taiwan on the international stage. Beyond our UK-Taiwan co-operation, we think it important for the international community to benefit from Taiwanese expertise in a range of areas. We are therefore working with partners to support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organisations as a member where statehood is not a prerequisite, and as an observer or guest where it is. We have worked hard with partners across a range of multilateral organisations to secure meaningful access for Taiwan, in a manner that is consistent with its status, and will continue to make the case in future. For example, at the 2021 World Health Assembly we named Taiwan in the UK’s national speech for the first time, and made the case, alongside like-minded countries, that Taiwan’s inclusion benefits global health. That includes its meaningful participation in ongoing technical meetings and allowing its health experts to access and participate in relevant facilities and virtual formats, as well as information exchange platforms.

As Members have pointed out, we need to learn from Taiwan’s leading example in tackling covid-19. It has rightly won the world’s admiration for its assured response, honed from its experience of SARS and using innovative technology to keep the virus at bay. We have facilitated expert-level dialogues between UK health experts and the Taiwan Centres for Disease Control, and we will continue to take forward plans this year for a UK-Taiwan expert health dialogue.



Members will be aware that Taiwan produces most of the high-performance semiconductors that drive our digital economy. It has a critical role in the technology supply chains that underpin global markets and invests heavily in research and innovation. We want our flourishing co-operation with Taiwan on science and technology to continue.

On semiconductor co-operation, the UK’s Compound Semiconductor Applications Catapult signed a memorandum of understanding in 2020 with Taiwan’s largest applied research institute, the Industrial Technology Research Institute. The MOU provides a platform for co-operation on advanced chips.

Taiwan’s MediaTek, the world’s largest smartphone chip designer has recently expanded its research centres in Cambridge and London. We are keen to build on that co-operation and a project is currently under way through which the UK and Taiwan can scope out new opportunities in the sector.

I am conscious of the time and wish to give my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton the opportunity to respond to the debate, so let me conclude. Although the UK’s long-standing position on Taiwan has not changed, we are proud of our relationship. I reassure the House that we will continue to advocate for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organisations for which statehood is not a prerequisite. Enduring peace and stability in the Taiwan strait is not just in the UK interest but a matter of global concern, so we will continue to work with our international partners to discourage any activity that undermines the status quo.

14:46

[Alicia Kearns]

I thank the Minister for responding to the debate. Above all, I thank every Member who has taken the time to contribute to this important discussion. There is unity throughout the House in respect of our commitment to and friendship with the people of Taiwan, whether from our legal eagles, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill); from our great gallant gentlemen, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart); from our foremost foreign policy expert, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat); or from great whisky drinkers and human rights advocates, such as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson).

Most of all, there is a clarity of asks and a clarity of purpose in the House. I hope the Minister can go back to the Department and go through the specific, meaningful and tangible asks to see what more can be done. Yes, there is friendship, there is opportunity and there are shared threats, but today Parliament has spoken with one voice, in the fantastic presence of Ambassador Kelly, to whom we are all grateful for his friendship and work. I again thank everyone who came to the debate, because we have made it clear today that Britain stands firmly behind our ally and firmly behind our good friends the people of Taiwan.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the importance of the UK’s relationship with Taiwan; calls on the Government to continue to work towards the strengthening of the UK-Taiwan trade relationship and deepening of security cooperation; and further calls on the Government to support Taiwan’s recognition in the international community.

Dementia Research in the UK

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

14:48

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered dementia research in the UK.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate, the all-party parliamentary group on dementia, of which I am the co-chair with the wonderful Baroness Sally Greengross, and the Alzheimer’s Society for all its work to support the APPG. I also thank the many Members who agreed to sponsor the debate, although being just before recess it is obviously a difficult slot to fill.

Dementia is one of the biggest health challenges that we face today. It is the UK’s biggest killer and, with an ever-aging population, the number of people living with dementia in the UK and around the world is set to grow. Indeed, figures from the Alzheimer’s Society show that around 900,000 people are currently living with the condition in the UK, and that number is set to grow to 1.3 million by 2030. There will be few of us who do not know somebody who is either living with dementia or affected by it.

That includes me. My mum was 64 when she was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and unfortunately she died 10 years later. The work I do on the APPG is in her memory, and in recognition that there are millions of families affected by dementia and who are currently caring for people they love who have one of the many degenerative brain diseases that cause dementia. We frequently talk about dementia as though it was just one disease, but it is not. Dementia is a set of symptoms, but there is an array of degenerative brain diseases that make up dementia, of which Alzheimer’s disease is probably the best known.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend talks movingly about her mum. My mum also had frontotemporal dementia as the cause on her death certificate in 2017, 10 days before polling day—thanks, mum! Towards the end they have a mixture of intransigence, stubbornness, regression and paranoia. A minibus from Ealing Council used to come and take her to a memory clinic in Acton, but it was largely old chaps playing dominoes, and that was not really her scene. She loved entertaining, and it was so sad that someone who used to cook for so many forgot how to swallow by the end. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as the shocking “moonshot” that we were promised in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which has never happened, research should look at culturally and gender-appropriate solutions to this awful disease? As she says, so many of us know people who are afflicted by it.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point about her own experience with her mum’s frontotemporal dementia and the importance of ensuring that we understand, from different cultural perspectives and different ethnicities, the impact of dementia and how we care for our loved ones who have it.

I want this debate to be about hope. That is so important. My hon. Friend has just spoken about her mum, and it was very hard for my mum. She could not speak and could barely move. She could not feed herself. It was a very sad state. However, there is huge optimism and reasons for hope, and that is what I want this debate to be about. I firmly believe that, as with many other conditions, research will find a cure for dementia.

We have one of the best life sciences sectors in the world, as we have seen over the past few years with the work that the University of Oxford and others have undertaken with the covid vaccination programme. Our researchers are rarely talked about, but they are our unsung heroes and we should be immensely proud of the work they do and the significant contribution they make to the economy. I believe it is a matter of when, not if, we will see the breakthroughs that are desperately needed for therapies in dementia research.

However, that is fundamentally dependent on adequate investment. Despite the ever-increasing prevalence of dementia, research into it is consistently and disproportionately underfunded. There is news from the United States of treatments such as aducanumab, which has just been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is expected to help people when they are diagnosed with dementia. This is a great and exciting opportunity for the Government to support the field and cement the UK’s place as a world leader in dementia research.

As my hon. Friend has just mentioned, we know that during the 2019 general election the Conservative party promised to double dementia research funding from £83 million to £166 million a year over a 10-year period—the “dementia moonshot”. Similarly, the Labour party has committed to that. We have cross-party consensus, but we are still waiting for the Government to bring forward any of that additional funding. Last year, in fact, there was a 10% fall in the amount of funding provided to dementia research, so it received only £75 million instead of £83 million. That is a huge missed opportunity to expand our research capabilities in that area, to support the inspiring academics working in the field and to provide hope to the millions of people affected by dementia across the UK. It also does not make economic sense, as I will move on to later.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

My mum died of dementia at the start of the covid outbreak. She formed a great attachment to Madam Deputy Speaker, of whom she was very fond, and Madam Deputy Speaker was very fond of her. Her name was Marion. She went from being a sparkling presence to somebody who, at the start of the pandemic, was locked in for her own protection and I was not able to go and see her. I had never before understood the whole idea of somebody turning their face to the wall, but she just stopped eating and drinking, and within a week, she was dead. I hope that when the story of the pandemic is written, we will remember all those people who died because of it and who will never be recorded as having died of covid. They died through loneliness, which is so important for us all to remember.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. May I interrupt to say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that his mother was a sparkling presence and a lovely lady? I was very fond of her and it is tragic that he has lost her. We all feel it very deeply with him.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I similarly add my sincere condolences to the hon. Member. I could not agree more with his sentiments. It does affect everybody and it is moving to hear how different hon. Members have been affected by their loved ones. I want to provide hope as well, and I hope that what I go on to say will provide a bit of comfort to him. We must do more on it, though, must we not?

The Government have said that we can expect to see their plans on dementia research in the national dementia strategy. I am grateful to see the Minister in his place, because we have worked together on dementia in the past and I know that he feels as passionately about it as I do. Given that there has been a real hiatus from the manifesto in 2019 to where we are now, and that we have actually slipped backwards, I would be grateful if he could commit to discussions with the Treasury about an announcement in the spring statement next month. That is way overdue and we must provide hope to hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the success of previous Governments in the last 15 years. We had our first dementia strategy in 2009. My right hon. Friend, now the Mayor of Greater Manchester, was the author of that fine strategy. We must also pay tribute to the former Prime Minister David Cameron for his work on it. He managed to increase dementia research from just over £28 million to £82 million during his incumbency. Government-led initiatives, such as his challenge on dementia, establishing the UK Dementia Research Institute, and leading the world during our 2014 G8 presidency by hosting the world’s first dementia summit, put us on a good footing to lead the world in this field. We need to build on that, but as I say I fear we are slipping backwards.

I mentioned the importance and urgency of fulfilling that commitment, but I also want to stress the economic argument. We heard last week, in the Government’s levelling-up White Paper, about the huge potential economic benefits of investing in research and development, particularly in the life sciences. Our life sciences sector in the north-west, spanning from Liverpool all the way to Hull, has magnificent research institutes and organisations. We know that extra Government investment acts as a catalyst to unlock private funding. A study conducted by Oxford Economics in 2020 found that each £1 of public money—Government money—is at least doubled. If we look at what that would mean for dementia research, a moonshot investment of £800 million over the next decade could unlock £1.6 billion to £1.8 billion of additional private investment. This is an answer to the levelling-up issue to which the Government have said they are committed. I urge them. This is a source of addressing some of the issues they are facing on that particular policy promise.

It was because of the lack of Government movement on the issue that last year the all-party parliamentary group decided to undertake a dementia research inquiry. As well as making the case for the moonshot, the resulting report, “Fuelling the Moonshot”—do look at it on the Alzheimer’s Society website—set out how the money could be best used to support the sector. Throughout the inquiry, we sought to look at the entire dementia research system. It is important to recognise that, when we talk about dementia research, we do not just mean exploring for cures and treatments, although that is obviously vital; it is also about researching diagnostic methods, how dementia can be prevented and exploring how people with dementia can best be cared for.

Over the course of the inquiry, we took written and oral evidence from hundreds of people living with and affected by dementia, academics, charities, research institutes and research participants. I thank everybody who took part. We could not have produced the quality report we did without their input. They ranged from Exeter, where researchers are investigating how we can improve the quality of life for people with dementia, to Edinburgh, where leading academics are researching the links between dementia and head traumas in sport. What we found was a rich, diverse and passionate set of people working tirelessly to improve the lives of people with dementia and their families, but they need our support and they need Government support.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I was not going to speak today because of a clash with a Bill Committee, but I have been asked by several constituents to come in to listen to the debate. The hon. Lady is putting forward a persuasive case. I want briefly to pay tribute to the hidden army of carers across the UK: the current estimate is that there are about 6.5 million of them. They are perhaps saving the Treasury over £100 billion in lost wages. Does she agree that we should do more to increase carer’s allowance and to formally recognise those very selfless and diligent people?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am very grateful to him for coming here. I agree totally with the points he has made to acknowledge the army of family carers who support people living with dementia and the fact that they are supported by a pittance. We need to do much, much more in that regard.

I was coming on to talk about the importance of the work of charities such as Alzheimer’s Research UK and the Alzheimer’s Society. About half of all the research undertaken is as a result of the funding raised by the Alzheimer’s Society. As many would expect, like other charitable sectors, medical research charities were hit particularly hard as a result of the pandemic. The Association of Medical Research Charities estimated that the pandemic has caused a shortfall of UK medical research investment of at least £310 million. That huge loss of income has of course impacted on funding decisions for these charities. The Alzheimer’s Society had planned to fund two research calls last year, but it was unable to do so because of its financial situation. The same thing was felt across the entire research community. An Alzheimer’s Society survey found that 85% of researchers reported that the pandemic had led to fewer funding opportunities being available for them.

Similarly, like those in nearly every UK sector, dementia researchers have been hard hit by the effects of the pandemic. For many, lockdowns meant that their labs had to close and participants could no longer take in part in trials. I spoke to a researcher in Manchester who had spent months growing brain cells for her research, only for them to have to be thrown away—months of work wasted. The pandemic also had an impact on the work of researchers who worked outside labs. For example, it affected those working in areas that require face-to-face contact with participants—including people with dementia—such as drug, clinical and care intervention trials.

Understandably, many clinical staff were redeployed to work in the frontline NHS throughout the pandemic, and that heavily impacted on the progress of dementia research. An Alzheimer’s Society survey from April 2021 found that almost a quarter of its funded researchers said that they or another team member had been redeployed in the NHS or in frontline services during the pandemic. We know that much of the clinical research that is undertaken depends on the effective clinical running of routine NHS dementia services, and many of those were seriously affected during covid.

One area I was particularly concerned to hear about during the inquiry was the impact of the pandemic on early career researchers. These are researchers who are at the PhD or post-doctoral stage of their careers. For many of them, much of their time and focus is taken up with concerns about where their funding will come from, or whether they will be able to progress any further. One researcher told the all-party group that

“typical…contracts go on for 3 years, and you have to spend a lot of your time in year 3 applying for your next tranche of funding—affecting your productivity.”

She went on to say that

“instead of concentrating on research, academics are having to worry about their mortgage.”

Of course, that has only been exacerbated by the pandemic.

There was a concern that having to suffer a break in their research left today’s early career researchers uncompetitive in the job market. There is a fear among those researchers that, when they apply for funding for the next stage of their career, they will not be looked on as favourably as others. In May 2021, the Government announced a fund of £20 million to support those charity-funded ECRs. I would be grateful if the Minister, in his closing remarks, responded to the recommendation that we made in our inquiry report on how we can further support these important researchers, without whom we will not see the next breakthroughs. They are absolutely vital and should not be overlooked.

Throughout my time as co-chair of the all-party group, and particularly during the inquiry, I have been lucky enough to hear at first hand from people living with dementia, and from their families. During the inquiry, I spoke to inspiring people who live with dementia or who have cared for people with dementia, and who gave up their time to participate in dementia research. I was struck by the sense of empowerment that this gave them. They know that the activities that they are undertaking may not help them directly, but they recognise that the research may support better care, treatments and even a cure for someone in the future.

To ensure that the UK is a world leader in dementia research, we must be able to attract participants to take part in trials. As one research participant put it:

“Too often research feels something that is just done to someone, rather than something that people can be a part of.”

People often do not know how they can be involved in dementia research. I want to draw everyone’s attention to Join Dementia Research UK. I encourage everyone, including hon. and right hon. Members, to sign up to it. It can link them up to research projects happening across the UK, and that is how we will help to make progress. The service is currently trialling writing to people with dementia after their diagnosis to invite them to participate in research. I would be grateful if the Minister said a little bit about how his Department could support Join Dementia Research UK with its pilot and help to roll it out.

Former England rugby union player Ben Kay is one such research participant who has also taken part in our inquiry. He has spoken quite openly about how important it is for him to be involved in the Alzheimer’s Society’s funded research programme that investigates the links between rugby and dementia. I am sure many Members here will be familiar with this not just in rugby, but in football. Nobby Stiles springs to mind, but we also know that Bobby Charlton, a particular hero of mine, has been affected. We need to understand head trauma in all forms of sport: not just those that use the different shaped balls that boys in particular play on football and rugby fields, but other sports as well. That issue, the Minister will know, has been of growing interest, particularly in the media. Again I would be grateful if he said how, with his cross-departmental work, he has been able to support this. Extra funding through the moonshot could really expand our knowledge of that area, so we can ensure that everybody can participate in sport safely. It is also important to ensure that people understand the risks and what steps they can take to minimise them, which is another area of research being undertaken.

One of the most exciting areas in dementia research at the moment is diagnosis. There is a real prospect that very soon we could see blood biomarker tests readily available to help to ensure people receive not just an accurate, but an early diagnosis, and I am talking many decades before we actually see the physical, behavioural and cognitive symptoms that we are familiar with in dementia. These can be cheap and easy to administer, much like the countless other blood tests that happen day in, day out. Again, I would be very grateful if the Minister responded on how we can make sure that, as those come on line, we can make them readily available.

Before I close my remarks, I would like to highlight some of the excellent research already taking place in the UK, particularly through the UK Dementia Research Institute. Set up 2017, this is the biggest investment the UK has ever made in dementia, thanks to the £290 million donation from founding funders the Medical Research Council, the Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK. I met the director of the institute during the inquiry and heard of the important work that it is doing.

The UKDRI has over 650 researchers working towards treatments and technologies to improve the lives of people living with dementia, with sites across all parts of the UK, including London, Cardiff and Edinburgh. The director, Professor Bart De Strooper, estimated that about a third of his researchers had been attracted to the UK from other parts of the world because of its infrastructure and research capabilities. That shows what a leading role the UK can be proud to play in this area—a world leader. With the Government funding for UKDRI running up to 2023, at which point progress will be reviewed, it is important that this vital asset in the UK’s dementia research system is supported to continue its work. We are only a year away from that, so I hope the Minister is able to say more about that.

There is also great research happening across the UK in the area of care research. We heard from Professor Dame Louise Robinson, who leads an Alzheimer’s Society-funded centre of excellence in Newcastle University. These centres of excellence, which also have sites in Exeter and London, bring together leading researchers to investigate how people with dementia can best be cared for. I am conscious of the interventions that hon. Members made earlier. That research is valuable to those people who currently have dementia in looking at how we can make sure they are properly cared for.

What is concerning is that, although there is a plethora of evidence of how effective care research is, it is not being used. In contrast to the principle of evidence-based medicine and evidence-based care, it is not actually being used, which is staggering. Again, I would be very grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on that. Can I just mention this figure? In a review of 170 training manuals for person-centred care in dementia, researchers found that just four—four—provided evidence about what methods worked when tested in a research setting. That is what we are using to train our carers. There is an evidence base, yet it is not being used to underpin that training. We need to do much better on that.

The UK has come a long way in improving our dementia research sector, but it is imperative that we build on that. People living with dementia and their families deserve to see the Government delivering on their general election commitment to dementia moonshot funding and leadership in dementia research such as we saw with the covid vaccine development. I urge the Minister to liaise with the Treasury in the run-up to the spring statement next month and to deliver for the dementia research community and for the country. We can be a world leader in the field, but that will need the Government to fulfil their commitments.

15:15

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for a first-class introduction to the debate. Dementia is an awfully debilitating condition. We all have many constituents who have asked us to pay attention to it and to attend the debate. I have been asked to speak and consider it a duty to do so.

My mother died while suffering from dementia. It was horrid to see a dynamic, wonderful person reduced so greatly that she did not even recognise my sister, who had cared for her. I totally sympathise with the description given by my friend the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) of what happened to his mother. My mother was lonely, she was lost, and it was terrible—a terrible end for her.

As we have heard, the UK has 850,000 dementia sufferers, and it gets so much worse once we are beyond 65. I reckon that roughly one in 70 of the population have dementia. One thing that really strikes me about dementia—it is a vivid image—is how often dementia sufferers are so frightened. I gather—I have not seen it—that they are particularly frightened when they walk into a room with a dark carpet or mat on the floor. They shrink back, because they think it is a hole that would devour them.

I pay tribute to the people who look after those suffering with dementia. That is not just formal carers; it is normally the family. Everyone who has experience of dementia sufferers knows that those carers do so much for those people whom they love, yet they do not get recognition for it. They are looking after someone whom they care about but get no response. It is really difficult. It asks one hell of a lot of people to keep doing it, but, my goodness, they do, often for no money whatsoever; it is simply because of love and what the person was before.

I am pleased to have been briefed by the Alzheimer’s Society, and I am now what it calls a dementia friend. May I urge all colleagues to take the Alzheimer’s Society’s “Dementia Friends” course? I did it in my office. It takes about half an hour. People come and explain about dementia. We may all think we know it, but let people come and talk about it. Then, the more of us who know what it is like and can talk about it, the more of us who can influence Government and the more we can help those poor devils who suffer from dementia and those people who, by extension, are affected so deeply by dementia because they have to look after dementia sufferers.

00:01

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing and leading today’s important debate, and I have enjoyed all the contributions. I thank her for the work of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia, which she co-chairs, and the excellent report it published last year on dementia research. The report rightly sets out the need for the Government to honour their commitment and bring forward the dementia moonshot funding as soon as possible. The report also sets out some of the key challenges the sector is facing and where that additional funding could be best used. I know that the Government are currently working on a new national dementia strategy, and I hope that the Minister will use the APPG’s report in its development.

I echo the words of my hon. Friend in her opening contribution: dementia is one of the biggest health challenges facing us today. There are currently 900,000 people in the UK living with dementia. In my city, there are already around 2,690 people living with dementia, and that figure is expected to grow to more than 3,800 by 2030. It is one of the consequences of our ageing population. Dementia does not just affect those who have the condition; it also has a profound impact on family, carers and loved ones. Many, if not all of us know someone who is facing the challenges of living with dementia, and we owe it to them and their families to do what we can to make life that bit easier in the future.

As we all know, there is currently no cure for dementia. Finding a cure must be a key aim, but it is not the only one; we must also invest in research to explore how people with dementia can best be treated and cared for. Dementia is a progressive condition, with the symptoms likely to get worse over time. That has severe implications for family members providing care. I take this opportunity to highlight the work of the Centre for Dementia at the University of Nottingham, based in the Institute of Mental Health. It is addressing precisely that issue. The centre’s mission is to improve the lives of people with dementia and their carers through high-quality, useful research, looking at how people with dementia spend their time and what can help them to get the maximum quality from life.

The University of Nottingham is an excellent example of what can be achieved when there is investment in research, and I know from the Alzheimer’s Society, and from what my hon. Friend said, that there are similar programmes in Exeter and Newcastle. She highlighted their centres of excellence. I hope that the Government will work closely with the charitable funders of dementia research and look to replicate those best practice examples. That is very important for improving healthcare, but that investment in research and development, particularly when it is targeted outside of London, can provide real benefits to places such as Nottingham.

Since the pandemic began, we have seen what can be achieved by our life sciences sector when it has the funding, the leadership and the clarity of purpose it needs. The huge advances we have seen in the last decade around dementia research—whether that is the creation of world-leading research institutions, such as the UK Dementia Research Institute, or the vast increase in the number of people attracted to the UK to do dementia research—have all come about because of increased targeted funding and a national strategy to bring together charities, academics and private investors. It is worrying that the state of the UK’s dementia research sector is now at risk. To be honest, it is deeply disappointing that the Government, two years on from their initial promise of a moonshot, have not yet brought forward the funding. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will set out a timetable for when that will be delivered and confirm that the new strategy will be ambitious about what can be achieved.

One point that really struck me when reading my hon. Friend’s report was the impact of the pandemic and the lack of secure funding on researchers. It is clear from the report and researchers’ testimonies that for many of them this is not just a job but a vocation. Not only are they passionate about science, but many also have a personal link to dementia. Their motivation is to find a cure or treatment, or to improve the lives of people living with dementia, but even before the effects of the pandemic, which shut down many labs and prevented people from properly carrying out their work, it is clear that there was a career bottleneck, causing many researchers to leave the field.

There is no shortage of talent among dementia researchers in the UK, but there is a leaky pipeline. New cohorts of doctoral students are often encouraged to enter dementia research without the funding in place to ensure that they can continue and progress into post-doctoral research. Will the Minister tell us what is being done in the upcoming strategy to address that pipeline—to ensure that our talented researchers do not have to move abroad to continue their work or, worse still, leave the field altogether? I know that the Government gave £20 million last year to support charity-funded researchers, but that is far from what was promised; they must do more.

How can we ensure that more people with dementia and their carers can participate in research? As part of the 2020 dementia challenge, the Government set out an ambition for 25% of people living with dementia to be registered with Join Dementia Research, which my hon. Friend mentioned. However, just 2% of people living with dementia in England have registered on the site, despite the policy being written into NHS commissioning guidance and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. Attracting the world’s best researchers and private investment relies on us as a country being able to show that we can get the right number and right type of participants taking part in research, so what are the Government doing to encourage and enable that? Of course, it is about not just the benefit to the academic research, but the benefit to participants themselves; the report details how being involved in research can provide a sense of empowerment.

My final point today is about prevention. We simply are not doing enough to communicate to the public what every one of us can do to prevent dementia—reducing our risk by keeping ourselves healthy. One of the key slogans about brain health is “healthy heart, healthy brain.” Cardiovascular problems all increase the risk of memory loss, thinking problems and dementia, but it is never too late in life to reduce those risks.

There are 12 modifiable risk factors for dementia, including smoking, alcohol consumption, exposure to pollution and traumatic brain injury. Cutting out or reducing those risk factors can reduce the likelihood of developing dementia, but despite clear research in this area, Alzheimer’s Research UK’s 2018 dementia attitudes monitor showed that just 34% of people thought that they could reduce their risk of developing dementia—far behind the equivalent figures for conditions such as diabetes and heart disease, which were 81% and 77% respectively. If people do not believe that they can do something about it, they will clearly not take the actions that they could. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to improve the health information provided to the public? Will that form part of the new national dementia strategy?

In conclusion, it is obvious that we have a wonderful, rich and diverse dementia research sector in the UK. We have passionate, dedicated academics who work tirelessly to improve the life of people with dementia, and of their families and carers. We have clearly come a long way. We have built terrific infrastructure, and have world-leading facilities, but just as dementia does not stop progressing, neither should we. We have to build on this, particularly given the impact that the pandemic has had on the field. We must offer opportunities and support to academics. If we do not, we are at risk of wasting all the great work done over the past decade. We must not allow that to happen, particularly when there are new, exciting developments that will drastically improve the life of people with dementia. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth said, we have to provide hope. The Government must bring forward a plan for delivering the moonshot funding as soon as possible. I look forward to the Minister giving us some hope when he responds.

15:30

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). I join her in thanking the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing the debate, and for all her work as joint chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia.

It is real pleasure to contribute to the debate on dementia research in the UK. As the hon. Member for Nottingham South said, Dementia affects around 944,000 people in the UK, which is 1.33% of the population, and also takes them away from us, sometimes too early. It was the leading cause of death in December 2021, when dementia and Alzheimer’s accounted for 12.4% of all deaths. In 2021, when we were rightly fixated on covid and its impact, covid accounted for 5.4% of deaths. Frankly, we do not talk enough about dementia and what it does. Perhaps if we talked more about the impacts, people might join us in pressing for more change. As the hon. Member said, funding for research is relatively low. Cancer attracts three times as much, despite the statistics I have just given.

All that matters very much to me as MP for Bexhill and Battle, because there are 2,413 people in the constituency living with dementia. That is 2.34% of all my constituents. Of our 650 constituencies, mine has the second highest number of constituents living with dementia. I thank everyone, both in my constituency and across the country, who cares for those living with dementia, and I send my best wishes to all those who have dementia. I want to press for more, so that we get a better deal for those with dementia, and for those who are so selfless and give so much in looking after them, whether they are doing so through their employment or because the person they are looking after is a loved one.

On local interaction, I am very lucky, because we have built up a good deal of expertise through our links in East Sussex. My office team have been trained as dementia friends, thanks to the Alzheimer’s Society. That has helped me to engage a lot better with constituents who face personal challenges. When I was first elected in 2015, I went to a specialist dementia care home in Heathfield. We MPs do not get training for that type of thing—or for many other things—so I asked the matron running the unit, “How do I deal with it when something occurs?” Her advice was: “Just go into the same world as them. Don’t be embarrassed; just go there and be part of it.” I have remembered that advice and followed it ever since. We have ended up doing some very funny things, but I have never once felt silly; I felt as though I was engaging and having fun, and that has stayed with me.

I am really lucky with all our care homes and specialist units. I absolutely love to watch young children come from the schools to read to those in the care homes. Of course, some residents have difficulties with their short-term memory, but some of them have an extraordinary long-term memory. I remember one lady in Battle who did not contribute, but then stood up and recited, without a flaw, “I wandered lonely as a cloud”. It was an incredibly moving moment. The children were shocked, and I will always remember it.

Next week, I will visit a local charity, Young at Heart, where there is a lovely connection between young people from schools and preschools, and those who are older.

[John Nicolson]

I myself remember starting to dance with an old lady, and the dance was endless. It was one ballroom dance, then another, a third and a fourth. Finally, the care home attendant had to come and take me away, and he said, “She is a former professional dancer. She will dance with you all afternoon, unless we stop.” Is there a problem that people are scared of folk with dementia? Should we be teaching dementia awareness, which the hon. Gentleman raised, at schools?

[Huw Merriman]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. I feel that a lot of us are scared. Actually, a lot of hon. Members are perhaps scared that they are making a fool of themselves, but they are not. They are making their constituents happy that they are there with them. I have done something very similar to the hon. Gentleman. It is right to teach young people about dementia in schools and almost require every single school to have that partnership, to encourage young people to feel as if they can let go. It is an excellent suggestion. I hope the Minister heard it and will take it into account.

We are fortunate to have local pioneers. Mention has been made of ensuring that people get tested, because early intervention can help a great deal. A year or so ago, I visited a pioneering local memory assessment service based in Bexhill, which supports patients with dementia across both my constituency and the wider East Sussex coast. Dr Stephen French, who leads the memory assessment service, is a GP, which makes the service quite novel. I took part in a memory assessment test and went all the way through it myself, to see exactly what those who participate have to undertake and how difficult it is.

The service has been running for seven years and has proved successful with local residents. What is great about it is that it is a community-based dementia service, so anyone presenting with a memory problem will be seen by their local GP in the first instance. After they have gone through other causes of memory loss, such as depression or circulatory disease, they will be referred to a local dementia specialist for a full assessment, at a GP close to their home. So, they could be having that difficult test with their own GP. That means that those who are already worried about memory loss are able to go into setting with which they are more familiar. It is less intimidating than going to a hospital or mental health hospital, which is where such tests sometimes take place. Unsurprisingly, it means more people will take up the offer and attend the test. That is hugely important for a constituency such as mine, where there are so many people who are impacted.

When the test is positive, that comes as a great shock to both the individual and their family, but with this particular service, two weeks after diagnosis patients receive a visit from a local dementia support worker to see how they are getting on and to discuss the range of support services available to them. Then there is aftercare, followed up by a medical review to see how the patient is coping and to assess the effectiveness of any medication. Their pathway then comes back into their own GP service, so it becomes one of the conditions that they are being treated for.

As well as talking about research, which I will go on to mention, I feel that we have to encourage early diagnosis in a local setting, and we have to take away the stigma of it. That comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) around interacting. There is also a stigma about going to have the tests. I would encourage any colleague of mine to go and have the test, in the same way that I have. It is incredibly insightful.

Let me return to the main thrust of this debate, which is about research. I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth that this debate should be about hope. I agree with her that research will find that cure, and I agree with her that it is a case of “when”, not “if”, but I also agree with her that it requires continued funding of the amazing life science and research sector with which we are blessed in this country. I particularly note the UK Dementia Research Institute, which was set up in 2017. Its main hub is at University College London, but there are six other centres across the UK, funded by the Medical Research Council, Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK. It will be doing the job to deliver the moonshot cure that the hon. Member talked about, but it will require a good chunk of the £5 billion committed in the 2021 spending review to go into research on dementia.

I am encouraged by the Government’s track record. In the five-year plan in 2015, the Challenge on Dementia, there was a commitment to spend £300 million by March 2020. In fact that amount was spent by March 2019, and it was £344 million. So the track record is there, but there were some bold pledges in my own 2019 manifesto on what we would do as a party to help deliver that cure for dementia. Let me say to the Minister—I know that he cares deeply about this issue—that if he needs any help at all in trying to strong-arm as much of that budget as possible towards dementia, he will always have a friend in me.

It has been a pleasure to speak in the debate. This is an issue that affects so many of my constituents—so many wonderful people who care or who suffer. I am delighted that we have secured the debate, and have raised the flag for them.

15:41

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing today’s debate and on her continued work on this issue, which I know is appreciated by many throughout the House and beyond. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman); I enjoyed listening to the stories of his visits.

Dementia has a lasting impact on those who develop it and on their loved ones. While the patient begins to develop symptoms, maybe slowly at first, it may be frightening—memory loss, a struggle to communicate, mood swings, and a change in personality for reasons the person does not understand. Over the course of our lives we get to know ourselves very well, and losing that sense of self is incredibly sad. The impact on carers and family members must not be underestimated either. Depending on the level of severity, caring for someone with dementia can be a full-time 24/7 job, and that can be exhausting. A common feeling among carers is guilt—guilt that perhaps they cannot keep up; guilt that sometimes they resent their newly found role. It is human nature to be hard on ourselves.

About 90,000 people in Scotland are currently living with dementia, and that number is expected to increase to at least 120,000 over the next 20 years. The condition is prevalent, and numbers are rising. It is estimated that in the UK one in three people born this year will develop a form of dementia later in life. In South Lanarkshire, where my constituency sits, dementia is the leading cause of death for women, accounting for 16.2% of female deaths. That is a sobering statistic. Globally, there are now more people living with dementia than with cancer, which is why research on treatment, or a cure, is so important. There is still no effective treatment. We can see how investment in research has allowed scientists to make unprecedented breakthroughs in respect of cancer, for example: sustained funding for cancer research allowed scientists to understand it better, turning what was, at one point, seen as a death sentence into a chronic but manageable disease. However, the human brain is complex, and that plays a big part in why dementia remains so poorly understood. Research has historically suffered from under-investment, and sustained investment is vital if breakthroughs are to be made.

Let me draw another comparison with cancer research. There have been 74,000 cancer-related clinical trials since 2000, but fewer than 2,400 for Alzheimer’s. In the same timeframe, the Food and Drug Administration has approved 512 cancer drugs, but just six drugs for Alzheimer’s. The UK Government’s funding for cancer is almost three times higher than that for dementia. The pressure on the NHS cannot be ignored. More than one in four hospital beds are occupied by someone with dementia, and more than half of dementia patients will have at least one hospital admission each year.

[Bob Stewart]

It was the story from my friend, the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), about his mother that twigged something in my memory. The real problem seems to be that the will to live disappears. People look normal, but they are just vacant. As an ex-soldier, having seen this with soldiers, I know that the will to live is crucial. When someone gives up the will to live, they are gone. We have to find a way of making sure that dementia sufferers keep the will to live because if that is vacant, it is gone. I think that is true but others might disagree.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I thank the right hon. and gallant Member for that intervention and the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) for his story about his lovely mother—a really sparkling lady, who I remember seeing pictures of. It is very sad when people give up the will to live.

One in five hospital admissions are for potentially preventable reasons, such as a fall, infection or psychiatric difficulties. It is not all bleak though. There have been developments and we understand the disease better now than we did just a few years ago. New research from University College London and the University of Paris, published in The BMJ in December, found that those with two or more chronic health problems in middle age are more than twice as likely to develop dementia. That research was based on a long-term clinical trial showing how progress can be made if the resources are available.

I would like to mention the Glasgow Brain Injury Research Group based in the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. The group looks at traumatic brain injuries, or TBIs, and the impact that they have on patients exposed to varying levels of severity of injury. It is pursuing an interesting workstream on the link between repetitive mild TBIs, incurred through sport such as football and rugby, and the increased risk of dementia. We all know of many famous footballers who have died from dementia, such as the great Billy McNeill. This is a fantastic piece of work and one of the many different research areas that could really deepen our understanding of how dementia occurs and develops and of subsequent treatment methods.

The medical community remains hugely optimistic. A survey of researchers at the UK Dementia Research Institute found that 90% of them felt that new treatments would be found within the next decade, and 72% held the opinion that the pace at which breakthroughs are being made is increasing. Vitally, though, 100% pressed the need for additional funding to allow breakthroughs to be made. They are the experts and we should listen.

Developments are already under way, but the key now is maintaining and accelerating the existing momentum. We have heard of the Join dementia research resource, which is piloting actively writing to all people with dementia after their diagnosis to invite them to participate in research. That would hugely benefit dementia research. In March 2021, Public Health Scotland revealed that less than half the people estimated to have had a new dementia diagnosis in 2018-19 were referred to vital post-diagnostic support. That outreach is essential. How will the Government support the JDR pilot and its roll-out across the four nations?

The lack of timely and accurate diagnosis is making it hard for current clinical trials to identify suitable candidates. The condition is severely underdiagnosed and the current backlog has only slowed things down even further. Transforming the current diagnostic process is pivotal. If diagnosis comes too late, we risk patients not being able to access treatments that might have helped to slow down its development.

The Government talk a lot about levelling up the UK, and I wonder whether that same attention could be given here. As part of the dementia strategy, the Government should invest in the development of multiple dementia clinical trial sites to form a network across the UK. Such a project would be in keeping with a true levelling-up agenda and make the UK an attractive centre for international life science investment. Better understanding of the disease leads to better support medically and emotionally. It will lessen the burdens on our frontline services. Early detection of the disease is crucial to allow patients to continue living independently and with dignity. That is one step that can be taken now. We need a stronger understanding among the general public about what to look out for and how to get help.

I wish to highlight the essential support provided by a number of charities for those with dementia and their support networks. They have also provided a wealth of knowledge to Members to support this debate, for which I am very grateful. Age Scotland, whose remit reaches much further, provides excellent support for older people in Scotland, as do Alzheimer’s Research UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, and Alzheimer Scotland, among many others. Charitable funding has become harder to come by over the past two years, and the work of those organisations in the face of that is invaluable and impressive. Their working commitment is commendable. The UK is a leader in biomedical research. That is something to be proud of, and something we must harness. I look forward to the Minister setting out today how plans for dementia research will be included in a national dementia strategy.

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

One of my constituents, in asking me to attend today’s debate and talk about dementia, mentioned that they did not feel that dementia is a sexy enough subject to get the funding for research. It is almost as if it is expected that most of us, at the end of our lives, will not be as sharp tacks in the box as we once were, and may therefore find it hard to attract the funding. Does the hon. Lady agree with my constituent?

[Margaret Ferrier]

I do not agree that people with dementia have nothing else to give to society. As the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle mentioned, they have some great memory recall, and it can be good to work along with young people from schools. It is essential that we have funding to continue that work and research into dementia because as I said earlier, more and more of us may succumb to that terrible illness. I look forward to the Minister setting out how plans for dementia research will be included in a national dementia strategy, and how the Government are supporting the development of essential new technologies in that space.

15:52

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to speak in any debate secured by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). Indeed, I do not think she has secured any debate on dementia in either the Chamber or in Westminster Hall that I have not been at. That is first because I want to support her, but secondly because the subject matter is something that is real to me as a constituency MP, and to others who have told their stories in the Chamber. I find those stories incredibly moving because they illustrate, as personal stories always do, how complex this issue is. It is a pleasure to support the hon. Lady in this issue, which affects every corner of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Strangford is a very beautiful location with wonderful facilities and lovely people. Given that, we have a high number of older retirees, who moved there to enjoy the safety of our constituency. The natural follow-on from that is that we have a large number of people who are susceptible to dementia. Over the years, when one is probably at around my age, one notices people who one remembers from childhood but who are now getting older and have developed dementia. I have quite a few friends in that position—I am not better than anybody else, but I can fairly quickly see where the issues are and one notices the slip away.

For instance, my mother had a lady living next door. One day she came in to see her and afterwards I said, “Mum, I think that lady is just starting to have a wee bit of dementia or Alzheimer’s.” She said, “Are you sure?” and I said, “I’m not smarter than anybody else, but I think there’s the start of something there”, and unfortunately there was. We know that drugs and medication can delay the process by five or six years, stopping the slide. As a busy constituency MP, I deliver on these issues all the time, whether it be attendance allowance forms, benefits issues or just helping people, as I do by the day, by the hour and by the minute. Recent figures and statistics show, and this is scary, that just under a fifth of all dementia diagnoses in Northern Ireland are of residents in the local trust in my Strangford constituency. As a busy MP with very busy staff who deal with these issues every day, every week and every month, I see these things.

Of course, we understand that dementia is not limited to individuals. We must remember that dementia affects entire families. The right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) mentioned his mum, and the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) told a very personal story about his mum, too. We can all relate, as it affects entire families—children, grandchildren, sisters and brothers.

Dementia takes people away from us while they are still alive. Those words sum up the debate very well, as that is the impact of dementia and Alzheimer’s. People see the shell of their precious sister, who has forgotten her husband and who screams when he comes into the room, “Who is this man?” She does not recognise him, but they have been married for 35 or 40 years. She cannot express her toileting needs or say that she is simply lost, which is what these people are. That is the reality.

This is replicated widely throughout the UK. Life is simply harder, as taking the standard medication is a trial. It is little wonder that, currently, one in four NHS hospital beds is occupied by someone living with dementia.

[Bob Stewart]

It is nice to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.

A friend of mine tells me that his wife suffers from dementia. She sometimes turns round to him and says, “Why are you sitting in my husband’s chair? Get out.” Isn’t that tragic?

[Jim Shannon]

That is exactly the kind of story we are all trying to illustrate with our words, or broken words, this afternoon. It is exactly what my constituents say to me.

The economic cost to the UK of caring for people with dementia is estimated to grow from £24 billion in 2014 to £47 billion by 2050. If that is the case, we really need research and development. Everyone who has spoken in this debate has said that we need it now.

I do not want to catch the Minister out, as that is not my nature, but the commitment in the 2019 Conservative manifesto has not yet been delivered. I am not getting at him, as he knows, but we need to have that commitment delivered. Dementia is increasing, and so must our response. We need funding for cures and coping mechanisms, which goes back to the commitment on research and development.

Asking people to play a game of sudoku on their phone each day is not a preventive strategy. We must put our money where our mouth is and find a way to answer the question of dementia. Way before covid arrived, I was invited to attend a dementia and Alzheimer’s help group at the Church of Ireland church in Newtownards. I learned a lot that day from speaking to family members, who told me that playing music sometimes seems to bring those with dementia or Alzheimer’s back to where they were. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire spoke about dancing, and I saw a lady dance—that is what she remembered. Music seems to bring people back, so it can be therapeutic.



There is one event I attended that I do not think I will ever forget. I know the people who run an Alzheimer’s and dementia home. They are very good to all their residents, who have different levels of dementia and Alzheimer’s and are at different stages. The trust were doing an event and they invited me as the MP and some of the local councillors down. They said, “We are going to try to illustrate to you what it’s like to have dementia or Alzheimer’s.”

Here is what they did: first, we put earphones on, which kept the noise around us but made a constant noise in our ears that was quite deafening and scary. They locked us in a room, in darkness, and they put a mask over our eyes so we could see nothing but darkness, which the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) referred to. They put a sole in our shoe that had points in, so that every time we took a step it was like stepping on stones. We did that for 10 minutes, and it was probably the closest I ever came to being mad. That is how horrendously scary that experience was, and it left a lasting mark on me. That illustrates, from a personal point of view, what it means to have dementia or Alzheimer’s.

In the 2019 Conservative manifesto, the Government committed to addressing dementia, pledging to double funding for dementia research to £160 million a year. However, I say gently to the Minister that two years in we have seen no plan to deliver that funding increase. I understand that there are reasons because of covid-19, but there are also reasons to deliver what was committed, which we all support, and we would all support the Government to make that happen.

The latest figures show a decrease in Government spending on dementia research. For the year 2020, funding for dementia research was £75.7 million, down £7 million from £82.5 in 2019 and £22.4 million down from its peak of £98.1 million in 2016. That tells me that we really need to do something. I know this Minister is a Minister of action, and I know that, when it comes to telling us what will happen, he will be able to tell us that that funding commitment will be addressed, so I look forward to his response.

I support the calls of Alzheimer’s Research UK. The rapid development of the covid-19 vaccines, a success story that we all welcome, tells us that, if we focus on something, we can do it. If we can do it, let us do it—and if we need the money that was committed to make that happen, let us do that as well. That is what we want to make happen. Alzheimer’s Research UK says:

“The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines has demonstrated the role the UK Government can play in bringing together different stakeholders to focus on a common challenge, and the impact this collective energy, funding and determination can have. In parallel to increased research funding, we need the approach taken to COVID vaccines to be applied to dementia—coordinated, ambitious action from government to bring together industry, health services and researchers”—

all those who want to help, including our Minister and the Government. It continues:

“This bold approach must be reflected in the forthcoming Department of Health and Social Care’s Dementia Strategy and will ultimately ensure UK patients have priority access to innovative new dementia treatments.”

Dementia is unfortunately a growing problem, and we must focus on it, not simply because it will be beneficial to our financials in the long term—it will—but because families are being torn apart by the pain of losing loved ones while they care for their shell. That is what is happening. It is like losing a piece of them week by week, and it hurts. It hurts all those families. It hurt the right hon. Member for Beckenham, it hurt the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire and it hurt the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, who lost her mum.

When I think of all those things, I believe we can do more to stop dementia, and funding for research is the way we must go. Again, I look to the Minister—to my Minister and to my Government—to make that manifesto commitment a reality, and sooner rather than later.

16:03

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

I too commend the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing this debate and for her excellent contributions to it.

We have heard that dementia affects around 850,000 people in the United Kingdom—one in every 14 people over the age of 65, and one in every six over the age of 80. Dementia is one of the leading causes of death across the United Kingdom and currently, as we know, there is no cure. The most well-known impact of dementia on an individual is progressive memory loss, which affects both mental and physical abilities and makes it difficult to execute even the most basic of daily activities effectively and efficiently. When someone is diagnosed with dementia, it can be overwhelming, as they face several difficult challenges on the long road ahead.

We all know and have heard just how much dementia has affected many of our constituents and their loved ones during this awful pandemic. The House heard so lovingly from my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) about his plight and the plight of his wonderful mother Marion. I have spoken to those who care for family members across my constituency of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, and they have expressed how much more difficult covid and the pandemic have made the experience, as the pandemic has presented its own new and unique challenges.

Not only does dementia cause harm and heartbreak to millions of families throughout the countries of the UK but it is completely unsustainable for our health and social care systems. The economic cost to the UK of caring for people with dementia is estimated to grow from the £24 billion it was in 2014 to £47 billion by 2050. Age is, of course, by far the biggest risk factor for a dementia diagnosis, and as our population ages the number of people diagnosed with dementia will increase. The number of people living with dementia in the UK is expected to exceed 1 million by 2025.

As we have heard, 90,000 people are currently living with dementia in homes all across Scotland. That is why the SNP Scottish Government published a dementia and covid-19 action plan in December 2020, to build on, continue and expand the national action taken since March 2020 to support people with dementia and their carers. The Scottish Government are working with partners such as Age Scotland to help dementia patients to get better support and have a bigger say in what works for them and in their individual care package.

The Scottish Government have pledged a further £1 million to help to tackle dementia in Scotland. Brian Sloan, the chief exec of Age Scotland, said:

“This funding will help address some of these challenges by shaping communities that work for those who have lived experience of dementia.”

That is a clear indication of the effectiveness of Scotland’s response. The Scottish Government have seen how the coronavirus pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on people with dementia. Through partnerships, they will help to grow the community support that has been considered critical to people and their families. I am of the belief that Scotland is also seeing positive results through our policy of integrated health and social care among health boards and local authorities. The Westminster Government should follow that lead.

Of course, Scotland is currently the only country in the United Kingdom with free personal care, which is extremely important support for people under the financial strains that dementia and living with dementia can place on families. People who are not in Scotland may wonder what that looks like: a dementia sufferer can receive up to four visits per day in their own home, where care is administered and the carer spends some time with them because, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) pointed out, loneliness can be one of the biggest indicators that mean people simply give up. We must do everything we can to make sure that people live a fulfilling and wonderful life.

[Ms Lyn Brown]

Hear, hear!

[Steven Bonnar]

Thank you.

In 2017, the UK Government declared that the UK would be the most dementia- friendly country in the world by 2020. [Interruption.] The Minister nods his head, but unfortunately we know that that is not true: just look at the hundreds of dementia care homes in England that were discovered to be providing substandard care to their dementia patients.

A Care Quality Commission report found that one in every five homes specialising in dementia were rated as “inadequate” or “requiring improvement”. Some posed such a serious risk to people with dementia—because of filthy living conditions, poor infection control and poorly trained staff—that inspectors had to order them to be put into special measures. In total, 1,636 care homes are failing patients, according to findings described as “appalling” by charities and campaigners. They stated that immediate action was required to address the “unacceptable” state of dementia care across the country.

If we are to position the UK as the world leader in dementia—something we all want to see—we should not start by cutting the much-needed funding that was promised by the Government for dementia research. As we have heard, the 2019 Conservative party manifesto committed to address dementia by pledging to double funding for dementia research to more than £160 million per year. However, two years later and another broken promise later, we find ourselves in the same situation, with no plans from the Government to deliver on their manifesto pledge. The funding for dementia research for 2020 was £75.7 million—a decrease from £82.5 million in 2019 and from the high of £98.1 million in 2016.

What else do we need to say to persuade the Government to recognise the importance of funding dementia research in trials? Currently we have over 150 clinical trials worldwide examining potential dementia treatments. It is more pressing than ever that we can transform dementia diagnosis. We need early diagnosis of the diseases that cause dementia and we need to diagnose them more accurately; otherwise it will be too late for patients to benefit from potential new treatments. The Government should invest now in infrastructure, resources and the clinical workforce to build diagnostic capacity and support innovative ways of organising NHS services such as brain health clinics to offer new diagnostic pathways. I look forward to the Minister outlining how the Government intend to achieve that.

The Scottish Government have proven our commitment to dementia research with a one-off £75 million increase in funding for our universities to ensure that they can protect world-leading research programmes against the financial impacts of covid-19. That is exactly how we protect those we care about and those who care for us. The current prevalence rate of dementia among older people in the UK is about 7.1%, and of the four countries Scotland has the lowest prevalence rate, with England having the highest overall prevalence rate. With the growing trend and threat of dementia to our citizens, it is now time for this Government to act and to outline a proper plan to help combat the threat of dementia across these nations, with the goal of preventing people from developing the onset of dementia.

The UK Government can follow in the footsteps of Scotland and become the world leader in dementia research they told us they would be, but to do so they must deliver on their manifesto commitments to double the funding for dementia research, speed up progress in clinical trials, and ultimately—maybe only by the grace of God—help us to find the cure. We cannot allow any more time or opportunities to pass by as we seek to support those living with and at risk of dementia.

16:12

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing this vital debate, and for the work that she does as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the time for the debate. What it lacked in quantity of Members, given that it is the last debate before the recess, it certainly did not lack in quality.

I think there is unanimity on recognising the value of dementia research and on willing the Government to do more. That degree of unanimity is unusual in such an adversarial Chamber as the House of Commons, but we have had a good debate today. I pay tribute not just to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth but to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), and the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar).

Dementia is the only condition out of the 10 conditions with the highest mortality rates for which there is no treatment to prevent, cure or slow its progression. Almost 1 million people are currently living with dementia. Every three minutes, someone develops the condition. As we heard very powerfully from the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), it affects not just the individual but those around them—their family and friends. Dementia is also severely underdiagnosed, and that has been further exacerbated by covid-19. There is a backlog of approximately 35,000 people aged 65 and over waiting for dementia diagnoses. I would be grateful if the Minister, in his response, could outline the specific measures that the Government will take to improve early detection of dementia. I also pay tribute to the many charities working on dementia, to the individuals working in research and, as the right hon. Member for Beckenham rightly did, to those caring for people with dementia—not just the professional carers, but the massive army of often family carers looking after their loved ones.

Unless we find a prevention or cure for the disease that causes dementia, the number of people in the UK living with the condition is likely to reach 2 million by 2050—a shocking statistic. As we have heard, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease were the leading cause of death in 2021. As the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle said, in 2021, we were in the middle of the covid pandemic and rightly focused on the tragic deaths of people from covid-19-related illnesses, but dementia and Alzheimer’s topped the league table. Indeed, in 2019, 15.9% of all recorded female deaths were due to the condition. This is big, and I know that the Minister understands the severity. Those shocking statistics mean that dementia has consistently, for whatever reason, over a long period of time, suffered from under-investment in research.

Great work is being done in my constituency of Denton and Reddish in Greater Manchester, as it is across the United Kingdom. I pay particular thanks to those working in Tameside and Stockport memory services, who give the initial dementia diagnosis, provide individuals with initiating and monitoring medication, and connect them to support groups in their community. That kind of holistic approach to dementia care is crucial.

Dementia can be cured only with research, however, which is why I am also proud of the work that the Greater Manchester dementia research centre is doing in this field. The centre aims to connect people living with dementia to cutting-edge studies and to the National Institute for Health Research. The centre works across the UK through the UK Brain Health Network, which has researchers in Bristol, Edinburgh, London, Cambridge, Oxford, Cardiff and Belfast, and which aims to bring molecular diagnostics into routine practice throughout the country.

Alongside the wider Greater Manchester “Dementia United” strategy, that innovative work gives my constituents who suffer from dementia the research, support and clarity that they deserve. It is just one example of the really good work taking place across the country. We need world-class research to achieve the best quality of life for people and families living with dementia.

The Minister is perhaps one of the nicest people I have to face—other than you, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I know that he genuinely wants to do the right thing, which is good. He knows, however, as has been referred to on numerous occasions, that his Government’s 2019 election manifesto promised to pour £1.6 billion into dementia research over the next decade as part of the so-called dementia moonshot. There has been huge unanimity in the debate that we want to see that happen. That was a point made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South. Over two years on from the general election, we have seen no plans to deliver that funding increase. The latest figures show there has actually been a decrease in Government spending on dementia research, with funding down by over £20 million since 2016. It has gone down by £7.2 million per year under this Prime Minister. That is totally unacceptable. I hope that in his response the Minister will address how on earth that has been allowed to happen.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the reduction in Government funding is particularly concerning, because the pandemic has had a devastating impact on the ability of charities to fundraise? Medical research charities, which fund 51% of all medical research in the UK, have seen their ability to fundraise reduced drastically.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. There has been a perfect storm. As we have heard, there is a growing list of people waiting to be diagnosed properly with dementia as a consequence of the covid pandemic, and, as she rightly says, the very research groups doing in-depth analysis and research into this disease are largely reliant on charitable sources of funding, which have almost completely dried up over the course of the pandemic.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I was going to mention this when I wind up, but I could not agree more. Funds to medical research charities, such as Alzheimer’s Research UK and the Alzheimer’s Society, have more or less halved—an awful impact.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Absolutely. This is a crucial point and it is why the Government really must come good on their promises.

I also hope the Minister will update the House and give us a timetable for the publication of the dementia strategy. Patients living with dementia, and their loved ones, cannot wait for the Government to get their act together. We need a plan and we need it to go much faster to develop treatments to change lives. The Government must deliver now on their 2019 dementia moonshot manifesto promise to double Government funding into dementia research. No more excuses: that promise needs to be kept. As we have heard, funding is needed now more than ever in a research landscape that has been decimated by covid. Not only have charitable donations dried up, but a survey from Alzheimer’s Research UK found that more than a third of dementia researchers were considering leaving, or had left, academic research due to uncertainty around funding opportunities.

I want to raise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) in an intervention on the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West. She rightly made the point that too often these research projects are not necessarily seen as sexy. We have to make sure that that is not the case, because as I have said, they are so crucial. Labour is committed to doubling dementia research spending to over £160 million a year and to playing our part in finding a cure for this cruellest of diseases. That is a part of our commitment to not only protect but enhance the UK science base and achieve 3% of GDP spending on science and research across the economy.

Patients and their families must be a priority. That starts with dementia research, improved early diagnosis and world class clinical trials. Our goal must be to prevent, treat and ultimately cure this complex and often heartbreaking condition. That is why Labour’s suggestion of a 10-year plan of investment and reform for older and disabled people, including those with dementia, is so important. It would ensure that more people could access care and live in their homes for longer, while being supported by carers paid a proper living wage of £10 an hour.

British people deserve better. We need to meet the challenges of this century of ageing. We need to learn from the pandemic, because there are so many lessons that we can put into ordinary life. We need to treat those who are diagnosed with dementia with the respect that they deserve. This is not a party political point; there is unanimity across this House of Commons. We must redouble our efforts on research for dementia to improve care and support and, ultimately, to find a cure for this dreadful disease.

16:25

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

In response to one of the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), I would not take away from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who has the Adjournment debate, the honour of having the last debate before the House rises. The shadow Minister is absolutely right about the importance of the subject we are debating, and I am grateful to him, as always, for his tone and what he has said. I find myself in agreement with him perhaps more often than is good for my promotion prospects; that is one for the Whips not to note in their book.

I thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing this hugely important debate. Before I was a Minister, I had the privilege of working with her and the all-party group as one of her co-chairs. I pay tribute to her for her work and her dedication to this issue, which is one of the most important that we will debate in this House, and to the work of the all-party group and the various charities that engage with it so diligently and give so much of their time.

I hope the hon. Lady will find it encouraging that even though this policy area falls within the ministerial portfolio of my hon. Friend the Minister for Care and Mental Health—I am, therefore, taking this debate on her behalf—I still read the reports and calls for evidence that the all-party group puts out. I will turn to the dementia moonshot in a moment, but I particularly remember the report from, I think, September last year with its overall recommendation and seven subsequent recommendations. I hope it reassures the hon. Lady to know that I continue to follow very closely the important work that she and the all-party group do. I hope that she will pass on to the all-party group, and the Members of this House who serve on it, my gratitude for their work.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, and indeed all hon. Members who have spoken, have highlighted in different ways either personal or constituency experience, or the work of organisations in their constituencies. As a Minister, I do not often get the opportunity to pay tribute to particular organisations in my constituency, unless I can somehow work them into debates that I am responding to. I join Members in highlighting a number of them, including the memory café, which I have visited, in Syston in my constituency. I had the privilege of visiting, pre pandemic, the Cedar Mews care home, which specialises in providing care for people with dementia, and working with local Dementia UK members in their campaign to raise the funding to secure an Admiral nurse to help people with dementia and their families in Leicestershire. We are all very familiar with Macmillan nurses, and it is important that we take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Admiral nurses in this context and raise their profile.

The hon. Lady will know that, like my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), I am a dementia friend from my days on the all-party group. I encourage all hon. and right hon. Members who have not engaged with that process to do so. It involves undertaking an incredibly thought-provoking and valuable session, which will make hon. and right hon. Members look at these issues in a different light, however well informed they think they are. I commend that programme.

This debate on dementia research is very timely, since the Government are currently developing their new dementia strategy, as has been mentioned. The new strategy will set out our plans for dementia for future years, and it includes our ambitions for dementia research. We are working closely with patients, researchers, funders and charities to develop these plans, and we look forward to setting out—I think the shadow Minister and other hon. and right hon. Members called for this—a bold approach to the challenges of dementia.

The central recommendation in the APPG report on dementia—it has been mentioned by a number of hon. and right hon. Members—was for the Government to deliver on the election manifesto pledge on dementia research, but I know that they entirely understand the impact of the pandemic. The SNP Government in Scotland, for perfectly good reasons, have had to break their pledge to deliver a fourth dementia strategy from 2020, following their highly successful third dementia strategy because they were unable to consult and develop their plans and had to prioritise dealing with the pandemic. For exactly the same reasons, the pandemic has had the same impact on the UK Government’s focus and on the funding, which we had to put into covid over that period.

I will turn to the manifesto pledge in a minute, but I know—I may get the pronunciation wrong—that the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) is a reasonable and sensible gentleman. My comments may not do him any favours with his Whips, but I know he will appreciate the impact that dealing with the pandemic had on the ability of the UK Government, and indeed the devolved Administrations, to implement their ambitious plans at the time they wanted to. However, that does not take away from the commitment of both the UK Government and the Scottish Government, now that the pandemic has receded, to get on with delivering what I know we all want to see, and I think that is a shared ambition.

I can reassure the House that we remain absolutely committed to supporting research into dementia. The funding pledge that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish highlighted in his remarks was in the 2019 manifesto, but of course we still have some time in this Parliament to run—I believe—and it is a longer-term pledge. There is still an opportunity to deliver on that and the Government still recognise the importance of that commitment. I will turn to funding in a moment and pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman).

The impact of the pandemic has been significant, and of course people with dementia, and their families and carers, have been very hard hit by its effects and by the necessary measures to combat it. I do not think anyone could have put it more effectively and more movingly than the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) who, in order to help our understanding, shared with the House—I know it will have been difficult—and therefore with the country, his experiences and those of his mother Marion. I pay huge tribute to him for his courage and bravery in talking about something that I know will still be very painful. From what he and Madam Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing), said at the time, I know how close he was to his mother. Sadly, I never met Marion, but I get the impression that she was a wonderful and amazing lady. I pay tribute to him for his courage.

[John Nicolson]

Thank you.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I think he speaks for thousands across this country who will have had a similar experience during the course of the pandemic. We must never forget every one of the people lost during this pandemic, whatever medical reason caused that, and we must never forget the families and carers of those with dementia.

As we have heard from hon. and right hon. Members—the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth talked about her mother, as did the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who is no longer in her place—the challenge and the impact of dementia are huge. Dementia is a heartbreaking condition that, sadly, impacts many of us, or will do, either directly or through family and friends. More than 850,000 people in the UK have dementia, and they are supported by a similar number of carers, many of whom are older people themselves, and we must never forget the debt we owe to each and every one of them. Of course, in a sense they do not see it as our owing them a debt. They do it out of love for their relatives and their friends, and that possibly even adds to the gratitude that we as a country should show them in recognition of what they do.

Hon. Members have mentioned the Office for National Statistics data on deaths due to dementia and Alzheimer’s disease in 2019, and the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth made a very important point. In common parlance and commentary, people talk about Alzheimer’s as dementia and dementia as a single disease, but she is right to talk about dementia as an overarching term for a variety of diseases. I will return to education and awareness-raising. ONS statistics show that in 2019 deaths attributed to dementia decreased for the first time since 2009, but they remained the leading cause of death, accounting for 12.5% of all registered deaths in that year.

On the point that I was making to the hon. Lady, there are three key elements that we as a society and as a country need to look at. First, we need to raise people’s awareness and understanding of dementia. We want to have a society in which we all think and feel differently about dementia; one where there is less fear, stigma and discrimination and more understanding. While many thousands of people have dementia, we must not see it as an inevitable part of ageing. I will return to that.

In the past 20 to 30 years, we have seen a breaking down of the taboo and unwillingness to speak about cancer, for example. As a society and as individuals, we talk much more in our national and individual discourse about cancer and what we can do to help prevent it, to treat it, and to make people feel less alone when they have a cancer diagnosis. We have made progress on dementia, but we still have a long way to go to raise that awareness and have that national debate. All hon. Members play a huge role in stimulating that debate, and today’s debate has helped to do that.

To return to the heart of the matter, perhaps one reason why people do not engage with it or talk about it—they may feel frightened—is that although with cancer we know that there are diagnostic tests and that every day we are making new discoveries that help increase the opportunity to find a cure and treat it or so that people can live longer and well with it, we are not there yet with dementia. I suspect that there is an element of people thinking, “Well, if I get the answer and nothing really can be done, do I want to know?” The short answer is that it is always better to know, because that allows the person to plan and have those conversations. Through knowing, they can also help advance that research. However, I understand the entirely human reaction of people thinking, “Maybe I’d prefer not to know.” We need to continue that conversation.

The second hugely important aspect is support and care for people with dementia and for those who care for them. While we seek to improve prevention and diagnosis as well as seeking that cure, we need to ensure that those living with dementia and those who are supporting them feel that they in turn are supported. We are determined to support those living with dementia to live the fullest possible life for as long as possible and to support those who care for them.

Alongside that, the third element—in a sense, this is the crux of some of the speeches and the debate—is research into testing and diagnosis. While it is not often the case, I think that hon. Members in the Chamber are as one in seeking one goal: the day we find a cure for dementia—or, at the very least, something that can delay it or treat it.

While we wait for that day, it is important to recognise the point made about prevention by the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). There is much that we do know about how people can help reduce their risk of dementia through lifestyle factors and a range of other things. They may not be exclusive, but there is an opportunity for people to take simple steps that help prevent or reduce the risk of getting dementia. We need to do more to spread that message and raise awareness of that in our society. I am grateful to her for making that point, because we want to reduce the number of preventable dementia cases.

I will return to other points subsequently, but let me turn to research and the moonshot that has been mentioned. The new dementia strategy will set out our plans to tackle dementia over the coming years. I try not to be partisan, so I pay tribute to the Scottish Government’s 2017 to 2020 dementia care strategy—I think it was their third—as well as the two related workforce programmes and a range of other measures. We can always learn from each other and best practice in different parts of our Union, and we should certainly be willing to do that in a space such as this. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) has kindly invited me to Edinburgh to see a range of things that she wishes to showcase to me. I hope that I will be able to take her up on that offer and also see my opposite number in Scotland, Secretary Humza Yousaf.

Hon. Members raised a question about the devolved Administrations and working together. I think the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), who is no longer in her place, mentioned the joint dementia research work. We are working with the Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK and Alzheimer Scotland. We are jointly funding that work to ensure that, notwithstanding other contexts in this House where we may have debates about our Union, we are genuinely working together to deliver a positive outcome.

Increasing research spend takes time. I hope that hon. Members will recognise the impact that the past two years have had on the spending prioritisation, as we have had to focus to meet the immediacy of the covid situation. However, we have committed to invest at least £375 million in neurodegenerative disease research over the next five years. To the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, we are working across Government to finalise outcomes from the spending review and to identify ways to significantly boost research on dementia.

With that in mind, I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, who says that in this context, I will always have a friend in him. I always find that I do have a friend in him; I have known him for a long time. Without straying into territory more properly reserved to the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor, let me say that there is a joint ambition across Government to continue to drive this agenda forward. Knowing my hon. Friend as I do, and watching his work as Chair of the Transport Committee, I suspect that he will not hold back in expressing his views on matters such as this, about which he is passionate.

The £5 billion investment in health-related research and development announced in the 2021 spending review reflects the Government’s broader commitment to support research into the most pressing health challenges of our time, including dementia. A number of specific points have been raised by the APPG and other Members. I will touch on as many as I can in the time available, but seek to leave five minutes for the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, because I suspect she will want to come back on some of these points, given her work.

I turn to prevention, including what the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities will do to help reduce people’s risk of developing dementia. The APPG report recommended that the new Office for Health Improvement and Disparities launch public information campaigns on dementia risk reduction. OHID is involved in the development of the new dementia strategy, which will include proposals on prevention and risk reduction. The concept of brain health as part of encouraging people to reduce their dementia risk—going to the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham South—is being actively explored. OHID has been working with the Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK to review public facing materials aimed at raising public awareness of dementia risk reduction.

I should take this opportunity—I fear I omitted to do so in my opening remarks—to pay tribute to Alzheimer’s Research UK, Dementia UK, the Alzheimer’s Society and the myriad local charities and groups that are working so hard to drive forward this agenda, and to support people with dementia and their families, as well as the research space. I add my tribute to that of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish to the Greater Manchester research centre. Sadly it does not fall within my portfolio, but he and I might be dextrous in finding a reason within my portfolio that allows me to go and visit it with him jointly, which we would both enjoy.

More than 15 million people aged between 40 and 74 are eligible for an NHS health check in England, and during such a check, individuals are made aware that exercise, healthy weight, healthy diet and reduced alcohol consumption help maintain a healthy brain, and we need to continue to emphasise that message and the support that is out there through those health checks. I think it was the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth who touched on early diagnosis—it is not just about focusing on research for a cure, but on diagnosis. Timely diagnosis of dementia, as with so many other diseases, plays a hugely important part in ensuring that a person with dementia can access the advice, information, care and support that can help them plan and to live well with the condition and remain independent for as long as possible.

Everyone with dementia should have meaningful care following diagnosis, including information on local services, access to relevant advice and support and what happens next. Carers should be made aware of and offered the opportunity for the respite and support they need. DHSC guidance is already available, titled “After diagnosis of dementia: what to expect from health and care services”. When we set out our dementia strategy, diagnosis will be a key element of that.

Medical research charities have come up in this context, too, because it is not just about the big institutions—small institutions, academic institutions and charities are all playing their part in this space. I agree with Members in the analogy they drew with the vaccines and what can be achieved and what was achieved when there is an imperative to do it. I find myself agreeing with the shadow Minister. When we put our minds to doing something as a society and a country, there are often no limits to what we can achieve, as we have seen. We must put the same focus on this issue.

We recognise that the pandemic has caused problems across the sector and that many charities are facing difficulties just as their services are needed most. Medical research charities are a vital part of our life sciences ecosystem, and they provide significant research funding and training. Importantly, they amplify the voices of patients and their families in that process. Officials at the Department have been closely liaising with the medical research charities to better understand the impact of the pandemic on them and to seek to identify how we can work together to support their research and them. In that context, just one example is that my Department, alongside the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, has announced a £20 million support package to help support early career researchers funded by charities. That will protect that pipeline of talent coming through the research system, to which Members have referred.

We have a rich dementia research ecosystem and we need to continue to support it. Through the UK Dementia Research Institute, scientists have made huge leaps in understanding the mechanisms underlying disease progression, and researchers have developed potential new diagnostics and treatments. It is painstaking work. The hon. Lady will remember when the focus was very much on amyloids, and whether that would produce a route to that cure. Often with research it is one step forward, two steps back, two steps forward, one step back, so the sustainability of investment and focus is vital if we are to make the breakthrough that we all wish to see.

Dementias Platform UK has established technology-based networks to better understand how dementia starts and to support experimental medicine studies. As the APPG report recognises, in partnership with the Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK, people with dementia and their carers continue to be recruited via Join Dementia Research to take part in a range of important research.

Through our National Institute for Health Research, we are supporting high-quality studies on preventing dementia through interventions targeted at known risk factors, service provision, care and care technology. There are many examples, but to give one, the “Well-being and Health for People Living with Dementia”, or WHELD programme developed an intervention to improve wellbeing for people with dementia in care homes and to reduce unnecessary prescribing of anti-psychotic drugs. In the 2021 spending review, as I have alluded to, we announced that £5 billion investment in health-related research and development. That reflects our commitment to support research, including in dementia.

We have taken positive action over the past year, notwithstanding the pandemic, to lay the ground for further developments and further research. Within the National Institute for Health Research, we launched a new £9 million call inviting research proposals on the early detection of dementia using digital technology. We launched a £3.6 million research for social care call to address important social care questions relating to dementia. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth has taken a close interest in that, both in her previous shadow ministerial role and on the all-party parliamentary group on dementia, and I think that the APPG has called for evidence on social care impacts. We launched a highlight notice on dementia that invites ambitious dementia research applications; it signals to the community that dementia is a priority area for the NIHR.

As we work across Government to finalise the outcomes of the spending review and look towards the spring, the House, the Government and the country need to retain a focus on this issue, which is one of the most testing challenges we face as a society. We are living longer, which is a great testament to advances in medical science and in its ability to fix our bodies and keep them going for longer. The ability to understand, repair and treat our brains has perhaps not moved forward at the same pace, so we are living longer with dementia. That is, in a sense, positive, but it presents challenges for society, and it is why we must retain a focus on dementia.

We need to continue to build on our successes in order to accelerate the progress on dementia research, but we cannot do that alone. We will continue to work on this across Government, and with charities and the research community. By and large, we share the objectives of the shadow Minister and his colleagues. We may disagree from time to time on how to get there, but I suspect that we have, and will retain, a common objective. Crucially, we must work with people with dementia and their families to bring forward our ambitious plans for our new dementia strategy.

It has been a great privilege and pleasure to wind up such an important debate, and to speak on a topic that is not in my ministerial portfolio, but in which I have taken such a close interest over the years. We owe it to our constituents and future generations to rise to meet the challenges of our ageing society and of dementia. We must redouble our efforts to do that; when we do, I believe that our society and our country will meet the challenge of dementia and find the cure that we all seek.

16:52

[Debbie Abrahams]

Let me start with some thank-yous. I thank all the speakers who contributed to today’s debate on dementia research, which is absolutely essential for the reasons that many of us have discussed. I am very grateful to every Member who shared their personal stories and experiences.

This is not something that will go away. We will see an increase in people with dementia, but it does not need to be that way. Before I go on to what we need to do and comment on the Minister’s winding-up speech, I pay tribute to my constituency, where we have 3,000 dementia friends. I was the first MP to train as a dementia friends champion; I deliver sessions on the subject across my constituency, and our youth council has taken part in this, too. It is an important way that we can drive up awareness, because so many people have personal experience of the effects of living with dementia. We have an annual memory walk, and many of our retailers have undertaken training, so that when someone gets to a checkout but does not know what they are there for, or what money they need to pay for the goods, there is understanding, rather than tut-tutting.

I worked hard with the Minister over a number of years when he was co-chair of the APPG. There is absolutely unanimity here—my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) referred to it. Members on both sides of the House need to do more. Unfortunately, what has happened so far is not enough. We need to ask the Government to stump up for the commitments that they made in the 2019 general election.

The money that has gone on neurodegenerative diseases research covers a much broader spectrum of diseases than those that contribute specifically to dementia. The early career researchers fund covers all diseases, not just those specifically focusing on dementia. The families of people with dementia deserve better. They deserve delivery on a promise that was made to them more than two years ago. The impact that dementia is having on people’s lives cannot be underestimated.

There is a lot more that can be done. We can have screening programmes, like those that we have for breast, cervical, prostate and bowel cancers, for people in their early 20s and 30s. Diagnostic tools have been developed to enable diagnosis to happen sooner, rather than later, so that dementia does not have an impact on people as they grow older and it is picked up early. It is not good enough for the Government to say, “This is what we are doing.” They really need to deliver.

I hope the Minister will take this message back to the Treasury, so that there is an announcement in the spring statement. I know the Minister is personally committed to this issue, but the Government need to back him up.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

As the Minister said, this has been a significant debate on the last day before the week’s recess. I have been an MP for 30 years and I remember that one of my first surgery cases was a lady who came to see me. Her husband had a very senior position and was well respected throughout the community but he had succumbed to the cruelty of dementia. She broke down in tears as she told me how she had had to put post-it notes all around their home in order for him to know where the cups were and things like that. My eyes welled up listening to her story. It is such a cruel condition, and we wish everybody working in dementia research in the UK and throughout the world well in order that they can protect lives in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.

That this House has considered dementia research in the UK.

Ambulance Services in England

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Steve Double.)

16:57

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I am pleased to see the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), in his place. He and I have debated many issues on health and social care over the last couple of years, and ambulance services have perhaps not had the attention that we would have liked. I know the Minister has had an extremely busy week, possibly because of the new trend for Ministers having multiple jobs, so I am grateful that he is here to deal with the points that will be raised.

It is an important and timely debate. We are regularly seeing images of long delays, with ambulances stacking up outside hospitals for long periods of time. Those images demonstrate wider difficulties throughout the whole system, but on an individual level they mean that patients are not getting the care they need as quickly as they should. The blame for that does not lie with the staff—the paramedics, the first responders and the call handlers—all of whom do a magnificent job in very demanding circumstances. We say thank you for their service, not just in the last couple of years but throughout their time in the NHS.

Despite their efforts, we are in a crisis. Last week ambulance waiting figures outside hospitals reached their highest level in five years. The latest NHS figures show that record numbers of patients in England—over 150,000 of them—have waited in the back of an ambulance for at least half an hour so far this winter, because emergency departments are too busy to admit them. That is the equivalent of one in every five patients—that is the scale of the challenge that we are facing. Those figures sound extraordinary because they are. They are 14% higher than the previous highest total for the number of patients forced to wait during the same period, with the previous high being in the winter of 2019-20.

As awful as those headline figures sound, the figures for the number of ambulances waiting more than 60 minutes are even worse: they are up 82% compared with the last two winters. These are exceptional and concerning statistics.

17:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Steve Double.)

[Justin Madders]

In my constituency, the British Heart Foundation has told me that it is concerned about reports from the North West Ambulance Service that patient flow in and out of emergency departments is currently very slow, with ambulances being held for long periods, which has the knock-on effect, of course, of causing higher category 1 and category 2 stacks. Worryingly, we have heard reports of delays of up to four hours in these queues.

I am sure these figures, as shocking as they are, will not surprise hon. Members who, like me, have probably had many emails of concern and complaint from worried constituents. Behind these statistics are tens of thousands of seriously unwell people in dire need of help. As the chief executive of the Patients Association said:

“Going to A&E can be frightening. To then be stuck in an ambulance unable to get immediate medical help once you get there must add to the trauma of an emergency visit.”

I think we can all understand where they are coming from. The Royal College of Nursing’s director for England also points out:

“Having to wait outside in an ambulance because A&E is already dangerously overcrowded is distressing, not just for patients but also for staff, who can’t provide proper care.”

It must be so frustrating for those staff, knowing there are other urgent calls they could be going to, that they cannot leave their current patient because the hospital is already at capacity.

I agree with those comments. Not only does having an ambulance stuck outside A&E as it waits to offload a patient mean that it is unable to answer 999 calls, which leads to slower response times, but it means we lose ambulance hours. We lost 8,133 ambulance hours in the last week of January due to crews having to wait outside busy A&Es. That is an incredible statistic.

As NHS Providers points out:

“safety risk is being borne increasingly by ambulance services.”

We know that people are dying in the back of ambulances or soon after their admission to hospital because of these long waits. We heard from ambulance chiefs in November that 160,000 patients come to harm each year because ambulances are backed up outside hospitals.

The shocking report from the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, which is based on NHS figures, did not report how many patients die each year because of ambulances stuck outside hospitals, but it did say:

“We know that some patients have sadly died whilst waiting outside ED”—

emergency departments—

“or shortly after eventual admission to ED following a wait. Others have died while waiting for an ambulance response in the community.”

The report acknowledges that, whether or not those deaths were inevitable

“this is not the level of care or experience we would wish for anyone in their last moments.”

The report also highlights that around 12,000 patients suffered serious harm because of delays, sometimes with a risk of permanent disability. In the same month, more than 40,000 people in England who called 999 with a category 2 condition such as a stroke or heart attack waited more than one hour and 40 minutes for an ambulance. Of course, the NHS target is to reach them within 18 minutes.

Just last week, NHS figures revealed that thousands of people are dying because ambulances are taking too long to answer emergency calls. The official statistics show that only three of England’s 32 ambulance services are reaching a majority of immediately life threatening call-outs within eight minutes. In fact, the latest available NHS England data for December 2021 shows that the average ambulance response time for category 2 emergencies —suspected heart attack and stroke patients—is 53 minutes and 21 seconds: three times the 18-minute target. Those are incredibly worrying figures.

The British Heart Foundation also reports that there were 5,800 excess deaths from heart and circulatory diseases in England during the first year of the pandemic alone. Although it acknowledges that these excess deaths were driven by a multitude of factors across the entire patient pathway, it also says it is very plausible that some of the deaths could have been prevented if these people had been able to access urgent and emergency care in a timely manner. If we are to avoid more preventable deaths and disability from heart conditions, it is vital that the most critically ill patients can access the care that they need when they need it.

Perhaps the Minister will be able to say what action has been taken to address the dangerous impact on emergency heart attack and stroke care and the victims whose lives are being put at risk, what conclusions the Department has reached as to why so many trusts are failing to reach the targets that have been set for them, and what steps are being taken to reduce waiting times for responses to 999 call-outs and ambulance waits. We know that these delays matter. If 90% of 999 calls were answered in time, 3,000 more heart attack victims could be saved each year.

I have reeled off a lot of statistics. Now I want to give a couple of constituency examples to show what this means for people who have experienced long waits. Thankfully neither case ended in tragedy, but these were clearly difficult and distressing times for those involved.

One constituent told me that she had waited more than 10 hours for an ambulance, having first called 111 at about 10.15 am, when she was advised to call 999. When she called 999, it took a few minutes for the call to be answered. The call handler confirmed that an ambulance would be coming, before asking if it was OK for her to hang up and go on to the next call. About an hour later, having seen no sign of the ambulance, my constituent called 111 again and was told to call 999, but was then told that the ambulance waiting time was about eight hours. At 2.30 pm she was forced to call 999 again, as her husband’s condition was becoming noticeably worse. By that stage he could not move or talk because he was in so much pain. The call handler took the details again, but advised my constituent only to call if the condition worsened further.

Another three hours passed, with my constituent’s husband in absolute agony. When she decided to call again at 5.30 pm, she waited more than five minutes for the call to be answered. The call handler asked if the patient was breathing, and said that an ambulance could only be sent if a patient was not breathing, as it was a busy day, although he did also confirm that the request for an ambulance had been prioritised after her call at 2.30 pm—which, by that stage, was three hours earlier.

The ambulance eventually arrived at 8.45 pm, 10 and a half hours after the initial call. Unsurprisingly, my constituent told me that the paramedics were lovely and could see immediately that her husband needed to go to hospital. When he arrived there, he was scanned and treated, and operated on within 24 hours. It was clear that he needed urgent medical treatment; in fact, he probably needed more treatment than he would have needed had he been seen at the right time. However, in the long run, no serious harm has come to him.

That is just one example of a person who waited longer than they should have. It was not an isolated incident; we know that this is happening week in, week out throughout the country. Another constituent told me that he called an ambulance after his wife collapsed at home. They are both pensioners. My constituent called 999 at 11.45 am, and was told that an ambulance would not be able to attend for at least nine hours. He cancelled the call.

The Minister will no doubt be aware of the tragic case of Bina Patel, which has received considerable media coverage, and has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). Anyone who has heard the calls that were made requesting an ambulance, and the clearly urgent nature of those calls, cannot fail to be concerned about what is happening in our ambulance services. As I have tried to emphasise, these are not one-off incidents; they are part of a wider pattern, and symptomatic of a system unable to cope with the demands placed on it.

Targets are not being met and people are being put at risk or worse, but NHS England’s response is a proposed new standard contract which contains a “watering down” of several waiting-time targets, with standards lower than those that were in place before the pandemic. The proposals include scrapping the “zero tolerance” 30-minute standard for delays in handover from ambulance to A&E and setting it at 60 minutes, and introducing the additional targets that 95% of handovers must take place within 30 minutes and 65% within 15 minutes. I do wonder how performance can be improved if targets are loosened. The pandemic should not be used as a cover for this, as performance across the system was getting worse before the pandemic. Indeed, it is nearly seven years since the normal targets were met. By scrapping standards for delays in handover, the Government are trying to normalise those longer waiting times. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) asked the Secretary of State earlier this month whether he really thought it should take an hour just to be transferred from an ambulance into a hospital. It should not take that long. Does anyone really think it is acceptable for people ringing 999 to be told they must make their own way to hospital?

I am sure the Minister is aware of reports in the Health Service Journal last month that several trusts, most notably the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, advised people calling 999 with symptoms of a heart attack or stroke to take a taxi or a lift with family or friends rather than waiting for an ambulance. I am sure the Minister will want to comment that that is not what we want to be hearing from our ambulance services.

The British Heart Foundation told me that it recently reviewed two calls to its heart helpline that highlighted instances where patients with suspected heart attacks called 999 and paramedics did attend, but then asked both to have their family drive them to hospital for further tests because the ambulance services in their area were under so much pressure. Neither person actually went to A&E, which is most unfortunate: one did not want to bother their family and the other thought that, if the ambulance was not taking them, their situation must not be urgent enough, which of course was not the case.

In short, those two patients did not access the care they needed because of the message being sent out about the burden they were placing on the system. That is completely wrong and certainly not the message we should be giving people who are clearly in urgent need of treatment.

A recovery plan has been announced this week, which, if we are honest, does not really address the issues of the wider NHS and social care pressures. It does not have any real plan for this particular area. The recovery plan, such as it is, is one part of the much wider system overhaul that is needed.

The Secretary of State said this week that approximately 10 million people represent missing referrals who did not come forward for treatment during the pandemic. I am afraid they may well end up becoming urgent referrals because they have not been through treatment and been spotted and helped at an earlier stage. I do not know whether the Government have given any thought to whether those 10 million missing referrals will lead to increased pressure on emergency services and A&E attendances.

What about those people whose care was not managed to target? The British Heart Foundation estimates that up to 1,865,000 people with high blood pressure were not managed to target last year, which could mean more than 11,000 additional heart attacks and more than 16,000 additional strokes across England over the next three years if those patients do not get support. Of course, that will again increase pressure on urgent and emergency care services in the longer term.

I appreciate there is quite a lot of ground to cover here, but when the Minister responds I would be interested to hear his analysis of the situation, whether he believes the examples I have given are part of a wider pattern of concern or isolated incidents, and what he believes must be done to put the ambulance service on a sustainable, safe footing for the long term. Are those images that we have seen of ambulances queuing up outside hospitals a temporary feature of a very difficult winter, problems with the ambulance service in particular, or symptoms of a wider health and social care system that is under incredible pressure?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Back-to-back appearances at the Dispatch Box by Ed Argar.

17:13

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

Reflecting the rest of the week, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for securing this important debate. In the same spirit, this is rather nice; it is like déjà vu: he used to shadow me at that Dispatch Box and in Committee. It is a pleasure to respond to his debate on this occasion.

However, I must say that responding to the hon. Gentleman is a pleasure slightly tempered by caution on my part, because I know the depths of his expertise on this subject after his many years shadowing the Minister for Health—I think he shadowed my predecessors as well. He has great depth of knowledge in this space. He is and has been a notable advocate for our ambulance service and what it needs, and he looks forensically into those issues. I also know that he is a diligent reader of The BMJ, the Health Service Journal and various other excellent trade and specialist publications. It is a genuine pleasure to respond to him on this extremely important issue. It is a shame that the way in which the House allocates debates means that this is the last debate of the day, so there are few Members in the Chamber for it, because it is important. However, those we have in the Chamber are quality, and I look both at the shadow Minister—sorry, the former shadow Minister—and the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson).

As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston highlighted, ambulance services have faced extraordinary pressures during the pandemic. I am sure that the House will join me and the shadow Minister—the former shadow Minister; by force of habit, I keep calling him the shadow Minister. The hon. Gentleman and I have not always agreed, but we have been as one in paying tribute to all those who work in our ambulance services up and down the country. They have done an amazing job over the past two years, during the pandemic, to the very best of their ability. Of course, they do that amazing job day in, day out; irrespective of pandemics, they always do everything they can to support those who need them.

The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights that the pandemic has placed significant demands on the service. In January 2022, it answered more than 800,000 calls. That is an increase of 11% on January 2020 and is one of the factors placing significant pressures on ambulance services, the wider NHS and the A&E departments to which they will take people when they feel that there is a clinical need. Although 999 calls tend to highlight the demand related to more serious medical conditions, many ambulance services are also responsible for 111 calls, which, in December last year, saw an increase of 15.5% compared with December 2019.

I use those statistics to illustrate the demand pressures, but I understand that behind those numbers, in every case, lies a human story—someone in need of care, someone worried and anxious, with friends and family anxious for them—so before I seek to go into the reasons, statistics and our plans and support, I want to say that I am sorry for patients who have suffered the impact of those service pressures. I want to be very clear that patients should expect and receive the highest standards of service and care.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted some specific examples, including the case of Bina Patel. He is right that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) has raised that with me. I have asked for full information because I want to get back to her with as full an answer as I can, and I hope that he can convey that to her, if he speaks to her before I do. I am fully aware of her correspondence raising this on behalf of the family.

Let me turn to ambulance response times and the reasons sitting behind some of the pressures. The ambulance service is facing a range of challenges that are impacting on its performance. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with many of them, including the impact, still, of infection prevention and control measures not only in the ambulance service but particularly in A&E departments and wider acute clinical settings. Higher instances of delays in the handover of ambulance patients into A&E as a result of some of those factors, which I will turn to, are therefore leading to ambulances waiting for longer in queues and not being as swiftly out and about on the road and able to respond to calls. So there are knock-on effects there.

One of the key challenges, which the hon. Gentleman will be very familiar with, remains the question of flow through an A&E and through a hospital. I am referring to the flow of patients out of ambulances into the A&E, who are then able to be treated in the A&E and discharged, hopefully, or who are then, in some cases, able to be admitted to a bed in a hospital ward. To do that, we have to see discharges continue of patients who no longer meet the criteria to reside because they have recovered sufficiently, and the national discharge taskforce has done a huge amount of work on addressing that challenge.

In recent months, we have seen the combined pressures of winter—the hon. Gentleman and I are familiar with those on an annual basis—and the impact of the omicron variant on the number of hospitalisations, which have not been as high as many feared and predicted, thankfully, but which have still had a significant impact on hospital beds. The combination of those factors, coupled with a high level of workforce sickness absence rates, including through positive covid tests—particularly over recent months with omicron—has created pressures that we would not expect to be systemic or built into the system. That partly reflects longer term pressures, and I will move on to what we are doing to address those, but a large element of it is down to the specific circumstances of the past winter.

The hon. Gentleman touched on the support in place to improve services, and asked what we are going to do about it, and what is being done to address these issues. He is true to form from when he shadowed me, as he will always set out the challenge and ask me what I am going to do or am doing about it, rightly holding the Government to account. Because of the pressures I mentioned we have put in place strong support to improve ambulance response times, including a £55 million investment in staffing capacity to manage winter pressures to the end of March. All trusts are receiving part of that funding, which will increase call handling and operational response capacity, boosting staff numbers by around 700.

NHS England has strengthened its health and wellbeing support for ambulance trusts, recognising the pressure of the job on those working in the ambulance services, with £1.75 million being invested to support the wellbeing of frontline ambulance staff during the current pressures. NHS England and Improvement is undertaking targeted support for the most challenged hospitals, to improve their patient handover processes, helping ambulances to get swiftly back out on the road. That is focused on the most challenged hospital sites where delays are predominantly concentrated, with the 29 acute trusts operating those sites being responsible for more than 60% of the 60 million-plus handover delays nationally. That is targeted support for trusts that have particular challenges, either from the current situation or where there are underlying issues that we need to resolve.

There is capital investment of £4.4 million to keep an additional 154 ambulances on the road this winter, and a £75 million investment in NHS 111 to boost staff numbers by just over 1,000, boosting call taking and clinical advice capacity that will better help patients at home, and better help triage those who genuinely need an ambulance and those who can be treated safely in a different context. There is continuous central monitoring and support for ambulance trusts from NHS England’s national ambulance co-ordination centre, and we have also made significant long-term investments in the ambulance workforce. The number of NHS ambulance staff and support staff has increased by 38% since July 2010.

More broadly, alongside the ambitious plan set out by the Government earlier this week, showing how we will invest the significant additional resources in outcomes for patients, just over a year ago we invested £450 million in A and E departments, to help mitigate the impact through increased capacity of infection prevention and control measures. I have regular direct meetings about discharge rates, and what we can do further to improve the flow of patients through hospital trusts within NHS England, with members of the taskforce on that.

I am pleased to reassure the hon. Gentleman that those measures have had an impact, and we are seeing improvements in response times from the peak of the pressures in December. Performance data for January, published today, shows significant improvement against all response time categories. Performance for category 1 calls—the most serious calls, classified as life-threatening—has largely been maintained at around nine minutes on average over the past several months, and improved to eight minutes and 31 seconds in the latest figures. That is despite a 19% increase in the number of incidents in that category compared with December 2019. Average responses to category 2 calls improved by more than 15 minutes compared with December, and the 90th centile responses to category 3 calls by more than two hours.

We recognise that that is welcome progress, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree, but there is much further to go to recover fully from the pandemic’s impact on response times and to sustain that improvement. We welcome the service’s hard work and dedication and pay tribute to it for making those changes and delivering the significant improvements on which I am updating the hon. Gentleman.

[Justin Madders]

As always, the Minister is being courteous and comprehensive in his response. Will he comment on the concern expressed earlier about patients being told, when visited by the service, that they needed to go to hospital but should find their own way there? That is extremely worrying, and we should be clear that it is not what we expect to happen.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I keep feeling tempted to say shadow Minister; he is a shadow Minister but he is no longer my shadow—for that point. He is right that when people ring 999 they should be given the appropriate clinical advice on whether they need to go to hospital, and if they do, an ambulance should be sent. I suspect that in individual cases a call handler may have made a tough clinical decision about the fastest way to get someone to hospital given the availability of ambulances, but the hon. Gentleman is right that if someone rings 999 and their condition is clinically deemed to require an ambulance and swift transfer to hospital, they should be able to expect an ambulance to come, assist them and take them to hospital.

At a time when the NHS is facing unprecedented demand, ambulance services are absorbing some of the increase in pressure. They are treating more people over the phone and finding other ways to reduce pressure in a clinically safe way. With clinical support in control rooms, the ambulance service is closing around 11% of 999 calls with clinical advice over the phone. That is far more than the 6.5% achieved in January 2020 and saves valuable ambulance resources for response to genuinely more urgent clinical needs.

Let me say a little about North West Ambulance Service, if that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman—I know that he and the hon. Member for City of Chester take a close interest in their local ambulance service. Our support and investment has benefited the North West Ambulance Service. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston’s local trust received £6.2 million of funding, which it has used to increase its workforce for operational and contact centre teams. The trust is also engaged with regional NHS England and Improvement and commissioning teams to develop a six-point winter plan that seeks to address six key areas throughout the winter period. As it starts to get a little warmer and the daffodils start to come out, it is tempting for people to think that winter has passed, but winter pressures in the NHS can continue into late February and occasionally a bit beyond. I wanted to add that caveat.

Three systems-led initiatives focus on the reduction of hospital handover times, the improvement of pathways for patients with mental health presentations and ensuring that alternatives to emergency departments—including access to primary care and other non-emergency-department pathways—are available to North West Ambulance Service in a timely and responsive manner.

Hospital handover delays continue to challenge the North West Ambulance Service footprint. Through its Every Minute Matters collaboration, which began three years ago, the trust has been working with other hospital trusts on improvements by working with senior leadership teams in hospital trusts to ensure there is a shared understanding of the risks of handover delays and a lack of ambulance resources to respond to patients in the community, to revisit action cards for operational commanders and, crucially, to recognise and thank staff for their continued reporting of delays and willingness to highlight problems to their managers or to the trust.

The trust’s strategic winter plan has been activated and includes details of the measures in place to handle winter pressures and mitigate the effects of increased demand and a loss of capacity. The plan is comprehensive and covers a wide range of topics and details on the preparation for various scenarios. It includes several continuous improvement initiatives for support during the winter period.

In summary, North West Ambulance Service is increasing its double-crewed ambulance capacity in line with winter funding arrangements, reducing conveyance to emergency departments and reducing the number of lost operational hours caused by day-to-day operational challenges. The trust has already seen significant improvements in the number of patients managed effectively through telephone advice, which helps free up ambulances to be deployed to where they are most needed. The trust has recruited additional paramedics and emergency medical technicians and upskilled its ambulance care assistants to blue light driving standard, thereby enabling the trust to deploy 269 additional frontline staff by the end of December.

I close by reiterating the Government’s commitment to support the ambulance service. We retain regular contact with ambulance services, trusts and those delivering on the frontline to help to ensure that patients and the ambulance service receive the care and support that they need. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for bringing this matter to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

17:26

House adjourned.

Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2022

Thursday 10th February 2022 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mr Philip Hollobone

† Bacon, Gareth (Orpington) (Con)

Blunt, Crispin (Reigate) (Con)

† Bonnar, Steven (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)

† Bridgen, Andrew (North West Leicestershire) (Con)

Efford, Clive (Eltham) (Lab)

† Foster, Kevin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)

† Huq, Dr Rupa (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)

† Jones, Mr David (Clwyd West) (Con)

† Kinnock, Stephen (Aberavon) (Lab)

† Longhi, Marco (Dudley North) (Con)

McKinnell, Catherine (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)

McDonnell, John (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)

† Richardson, Angela (Guildford) (Con)

† Smith, Greg (Buckingham) (Con)

† Stewart, Bob (Beckenham) (Con)

† Tomlinson, Michael (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Twist, Liz (Blaydon) (Lab)

Bradley Albrow, Gavin Blake, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee

Thursday 10 February 2022

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2022

11:30

[The Chair]

Mr Speaker would like to remind Members to observe social distancing and to wear face coverings when not speaking.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2022.

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.

The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016 sets out the immigration and nationality functions for which a fee is to be charged, and the maximum amount that can be charged for each function. Members will have noticed that the draft order is not the longest piece of immigration legislation that we have ever considered in a Delegated Legislation Committee, given that it seeks to make only two changes to the fees order, specifically amendments to the maximum amount that can be charged for two application types: entry clearance as a visitor for a period of up to six months, more commonly known as the short-term visit visa; and entry clearance or leave to remain as a student.

I want to make it clear at the outset that the changes do not alter the fees paid by customers. Specific fee levels are set out in separate legislation, namely the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018, and those levels are not impacted by the amendments we are debating. The changes in the draft amendment order, however, will serve to increase the flexibility on fees in future.

The maximum amount that can be charged for a short-term visit visa will increase by £35, from £95 to £130. That will align the fee maximum to the published unit cost for that product. The maximum amount for entry clearance or limited leave as a student will be raised by £10, from £480 to £490. That relatively small increase will provide some additional headroom on student fees, in particular those close to the existing maximum.

For background, both changes mark the first time that the maximum amounts will have increased since 2016. They will provide additional flexibility on those fees, allowing the Home Office to consider a balanced approach to fee changes across our visa routes.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

The Minister and I have history, and I like him as a person. It is interesting that these amounts are a ceiling, but I wonder whether he has seen the figures from 2019. He talks about student visas, but in the five years to 2019 the fee for limited leave to remain went up by 79% and that for indefinite leave to remain by 119%. At the time, there was an excellent comment in The Times Thunderer page—by me, actually—headlined, “Home Office must be stopped from running fees racket”, because apparently processing costs had gone down in that time, although the fees went up. I am pleased that he is setting a ceiling, but will he bear in mind that fees have been ratcheted up and up in the years until now and will he ensure that it really is a ceiling, to keep the fees down?

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. As she says, we get on well. It is good to get that totally independent analysis—in quality and method—in the article that she wrote for The Times.

Over recent years, immigration fees have generally risen so that more of the costs of the migration system are borne by those who use it, rather than by the wider taxpayer. Colleagues will have realised that in the past couple of years there has been a big difference in the income from fees because of the pandemic. Inevitably, wider funding from the taxpayer has increased.

The changes we are discussing specifically will be only to the maximums for two routes. They will reflect the current unit costs, in particular for the short-term visit visas, although, as I said, the draft order will not change the fee to be paid by applicants. That would need a separate statutory instrument to alter the fees themselves.

We are conscious that we need to ensure that our routes are competitive and give value to those who apply for them. One of the core rules in the rest of our work is to simplify our immigration system to reduce the amount of times that people need to instruct a lawyer to help them with their application, which in many cases can represent a significant cost that might not be seen as a fee, but affects how much people end up paying to secure their status in this country.

Changes under consideration by the Home Office are about adjustments to simplify the range of fees payable by customers, including removing specific additional charges and consolidating what people are required to pay into one overarching fee. A good example is removing the biometric enrolment fees charged alongside certain applications, with these costs recovered through the main application fees instead, which we believe is a simpler and much more transparent approach to the cost of a visa. We will of course share further details about some of the changes we are looking to make with colleagues and the House when we are in a position to do so.

Colleagues will be aware that migration and borders functions are largely funded by immigration and nationality fees as part of the Home Office spending settlement to reduce the burden on the taxpayer more widely. It is critical that any changes are funded by other changes within the system. It is therefore vital that the maximum amount set out in the fees order allows appropriate choices to be made on individual routes to support a balanced approach overall to the fees we charge. I emphasise again that we are not changing any fee levels through the order. Any changes to specific fees would be subject to cross-Government consultation and further parliamentary clearance and would be implemented through fees regulations, not this order, I therefore hope Committee members see the need for it.

[The Chair]

The debate can last until 1 pm, and I call Stephen Kinnock.

11:36

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Hollobone. I appreciated your pause before calling me to speak. I took the subliminal message in that very clearly and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.

I start by thanking the Minister for setting out the purpose and content of the order. For the sake of our national security and economic prosperity, we on the Opposition Benches firmly support the system for managed migration on the basis that it must be sensible, sustainable and humane. That includes keeping a clear record of who is entering and leaving our country and ensuring that they have the means to support themselves and their dependants. We therefore recognise the need to charge a fee for a visa, not only to cover the administration costs but to ensure that the applicant can sustain themselves for the time that they are here.

However, we are surprised at the dramatic rise, from £95 to £130, for six-month visitor visas. We understand the need to find ways to replenish the Treasury coffers after the economic earthquakes caused by covid and leaving the European Union, but is there not a danger that the increase will discourage tourism at a time when we need to get the UK economy firing on all cylinders? Is welcoming—rather than discouraging—tourism not a key part of the plan to build back better following 12 years of anaemic growth?

We will not directly oppose the order, because we recognise the tough economic choices that Governments must make, particularly in uncertain times. Nevertheless, we will appreciate it if the Minister considers reflecting on and answering the following questions. Will he set out the criteria on which the Government made the decision to increase maximum charges by the specific percentage that they have, and particularly by the sizeable 37% increase, from £95 to £130, for a six-month visitor visa? Will he explain in which circumstances the UK Government might charge that maximum fee? That is to say, will he confirm whether the £130 maximum fee will be applied to visitors from all countries to which the existing £95 fee is currently applied?

Will the Minister explain whether there will be different price points for visitors that undertake business visits and those coming only for leisure purposes? Will he state whether there will be different price points for single-entry visas and multiple-entry visas? What assessment has he made of the impact that that will have on the number of visa applications from ordinary holidaymakers, and the broader impact on our economy? What assessment has he made of that impact on Treasury fiscal balancing requirements? Will he commit to a periodic review to understand the impact that the changes we are debating today have had on people entering the country, on the overall numbers of visitor visas and on some of the broader questions about the impact on our economy? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

11:40

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the shadow Minister for what was overall a constructive contribution, and I note that he does not plan to oppose the order. To address some of his questions, the criterion was to set the maximum at what we declare as the unit cost. We did not take a percentage figure for the short-term visit visa; it was based on the fact that the current unit cost is about £130, and the current maximum is £95. That was the logic. We were not, for example, looking for a specific 30% fee. We were setting the maximum as the cost of processing a short-term visit visa application.

The fee applies to everyone who applies for a short-term visit visa. Again, the order that we are debating today does not change the amount paid by a customer. After it has been passed, people will still pay £95 for a short-term visit visa until we bring forward changes to the fees regulations. For a range of reasons, particularly non-discrimination, those who are visa nationals—those who are required to get entry clearance prior to coming to the United Kingdom—would all pay this fee. There are many countries to which that does not apply; most notably, citizens of the B5JSSK—that is, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States of America—our key allies globally, and of the European economic area, as well as any other non-visa national, would be able to come here and make their entry clearance application at the border, or through an e-gate in the case of a number of nationalities. The fee would apply to all visa nationals who are required to apply for a visa to come to the UK for a range of purposes.

The hon. Member for Aberavon has asked whether there is a separate fee if somebody is coming on business or on leisure. Provided that the person is coming for a business purpose that is provided under the visitor route, the answer is no. However, if they were coming to work or for certain occupations, they would need to apply, but that would be for a separate visa. The hon. Member may be aware that we plan to introduce a global business mobility visa to bring together a number of our routes for coming to the UK, not to work in a permanent job or to work towards settlement, which is what the skilled worker visa does, but to make use of certain trade agreements under which people can travel in and out of the UK and do particular functions and roles. That would not be done under the visitor route. A businessperson can come to the UK on a visitor visa to, for example, visit a trade fair, give a lecture, or do what is called a permitted paid engagement, which can be anything from performing at a local theatre for up to 28 days to arguing a court case as a lawyer here in the UK. Under the visitor route, people can do quite a range of things that we might consider to be for business purposes alongside all the things that happen for leisure purposes—for example, short-term study for up to six months is permitted under the visitor route. There would not be a different fee; the fee is the same.

People can apply for multiple entry visas. They apply over a number of years, and there is a different fee scale for them. The visa gives people permission for up to six months, and it is not uncommon for people to apply for entry permission, for instance because they are visiting family here in the UK. They will perhaps be stay for up to four months, but may travel in and out of the UK while they are here—provided, of course, that they secure relevant visas from the Schengen zone, and provided that their main purpose for being in the UK is compatible with the visitor route and they seek re-entry during the time for which their visa is valid.

An impact assessment will be done if we move to change the fees that are charged. If we change the fees that people pay, which the order does not do, we will not have to go from £95 to the maximum. There are a lot of points in between. If we changed the fees, we would do an assessment. I represent Torbay, where the economy is very heavily built on the tourism sector, and we would clearly want to consider what effect an increased visa fee might have on tourism. For many people, it will be a relatively small part of the cost of coming to the UK. Most of our near neighbours are non-visa nationals, so they would not be applying for this visa in the first place. We are talking about what are more likely to be long-haul journeys, where the cost of the visa itself is unlikely to be the main determining factor. It will be more about ensuring that someone can qualify for the visa—that is, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, they can show that they can sustain themselves here, and that they are not planning to work when they should not be coming to work under this particular visa route. We will of course pay very careful attention to the tourism market and international visitors. We look forward to seeing a regrowth in international travel, particularly as travel restrictions start to be eased more in the global context this summer. That will be one of our key considerations in any move to increase what customers are paying.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about a periodic review. We keep our fees under regular review. We look to see what impact they are having. We also of course look to compare them against those of competitor nations, where people may be thinking of going on holiday. For example, particular places that we look at are the United States and the Schengen zone. At the moment, we are comparable. Our visitor route is quite a generous one, of up to 180 days, and with quite a range of things that people can do that perhaps in other jurisdictions they might need to apply for a separate visa to do. I am thinking particularly of some of the cultural performances that people can do under paid permitted engagement, which is quite a wide permission.

Again, I welcome the overall constructive tone of the remarks from the shadow Minister. I hope that my responses give him some comfort in relation to some of the questions that he had for me.

Question put and agreed to

11:46

Committee rose.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [ Lords ]

Committee stage
Thursday 10th February 2022 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † Sir Charles Walker, Hannah Bardell

† Aiken, Nickie (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)

† Atherton, Sarah (Wrexham) (Con)

† Bowie, Andrew (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)

† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)

† Churchill, Jo (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

† Daly, James (Bury North) (Con)

† Evennett, Sir David (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)

† Glindon, Mary (North Tyneside) (Lab)

† Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab)

† McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab)

Moore, Robbie (Keighley) (Con)

† Morris, Grahame (Easington) (Lab)

† Sunderland, James (Bracknell) (Con)

† Tolhurst, Kelly (Rochester and Strood) (Con)

Vaz, Valerie (Walsall South) (Lab)

† Wheeler, Mrs Heather (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office)

† Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab)

Sarah Ioannou, Seb Newman, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 10 February 2022

[Sir Charles Walker in the Chair]

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]

11:30

[The Chair]

Colleagues, before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of this Committee, except for the water provided.

We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. In view of the time available and that all of you have flights and trains to catch, I hope we can take these matters without debate.

Ordered,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 10 February) meet at 2.00 pm on Thursday 10 February;

(2) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 10 February.—(Jo Churchill.)

Resolved,

That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Jo Churchill.)

[The Chair]

We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. Members wishing to press an amendment or new clause to a Division should indicate when speaking to it whether that is what they wish to do.

Clause 1

Animal Sentience Committee

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. The clause requires the Government to create and maintain the Animal Sentience Committee. The committee will be at the core of the Bill’s targeted, proportionate and timely mechanism for holding the Government to account on the consideration of animal welfare.

On Second Reading, it was asked why the committee needs to be established in legislation and why the Animal Welfare Committee could not fulfil the function outlined in the Bill. The fundamental purpose of the Animal Sentience Committee is to support Parliament’s scrutiny of the Government’s policy decision-making process. The committee is not there to advise or make decisions for Ministers. Instead, it will perform a valuable role in encouraging us to make sure we have properly considered the effect of policy on the welfare of animals. Creating the committee and placing it on a statutory footing is the best way of ensuring that the Bill’s recognition of animal sentience is given meaningful but proportionate effect.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I think the Committee is at one in wanting to ensure that we have adequate protections for animals. That has been supported in the petitions and the written evidence. Will the Minister clarify one point on human-relevant science? I am involved with the all-party parliamentary group on human-relevant science, which was established to ensure that alternatives are provided to testing on live animals, particularly in vitro, using cell cultures and so on. Does that fall within the purview of the Bill?

[Jo Churchill]

The point of the new committee is not to make value judgments. It is to scrutinise legislation to ensure that all due regard is taken of the welfare of animals. Such decisions are for the committee to determine, supported by the secretariat.

Creating the committee on a statutory footing will mean that it must act within the legal parameters set by the Bill. The Bill is clear that the committee has no power to make value judgments—these decisions are for Ministers. At the same time, the obligation placed on Ministers to respond to the committee’s report is essential for transparency and for the scrutiny of the Government’s policy decision making. Ministers do not have to accept the committee’s findings and recommendations, but they have an obligation under the Bill to respond to them promptly and openly.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The written evidence submitted by the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation asks about membership of the committee and notes

“the importance of using a wide range of leading animal sentience experts”.

It also wants affiliations to, and past involvement with, non-governmental organisations to be made transparent, and states that previous involvement with NGOs should not be a barrier to membership. Does the Minister accept all the recommendations from the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation?

[Jo Churchill]

I refer the hon. Lady to the terms of reference, which lay out that the Secretary of State will request that those who are on the committee will be from a broad spectrum. We will ensure that we have the chance to make use of the best expertise in order to advise Ministers, but we will not be overly prescriptive. However, the final arbiter of that will be the Secretary of State.

It is not possible to impose an obligation on Ministers without first establishing a committee in statute. A legislative basis for the committee will therefore help to ensure it is effective while ensuring that it is tightly defined. As outlined on pages 5 and 19 to 21 in the terms of reference, we want the Animal Sentience Committee to have a constructive relationship with the Animal Welfare Committee, while recognising that they have different functions: the Animal Welfare Committee will sit in an advisory capacity, while the Animal Sentience Committee will sit in a scrutinising capacity. It is important to remember that the two committees have very distinct roles.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill and am very proud to be sitting on this Public Bill Committee. The Bill is proportionate, timely and targeted. It is important, because the public believe passionately in animal welfare. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that their justified outpouring of revulsion at the recent video of the West Ham footballer Kurt Zouma suggests that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals should consider inviting him to animal welfare training in order to prove animal sentience?

[Jo Churchill]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I join her in being appalled at what we have seen. I agree that the public care greatly about animal welfare, but the Bill is science led and we are looking at the evidence base. It is for other bodies to choose the direction in which they might take restorative action so that people can learn and be called to account for their behaviour.

The Animal Welfare Committee is a well-respected source of advice on animal welfare issues, but it is not designed to assess policy. Allowing committees to specialise in their separate functions, and ensuring that those who sit on them have the expertise, is the best way to ensure that the objectives are delivered well. I urge that clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

Deidre Brock has caught my eye.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Thank you, Sir Charles. I appreciate your calling me this early in the debate.

I will just say a few words, because clearly the Bill applies only to England. We have our own measures, as animal welfare is devolved to Scotland, but it might be useful for colleagues to hear a little more about the work of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, on which the English committee is partly modelled. The Scottish Government often act on the scientific and ethical advice provided by the commission, which was established in 2020. Sensible and pragmatic solutions to policy issues, such as beaver reintroduction and management of deer, have been taken forward following the commission’s advice. The commission has welcomed and contributed to legislation on penalties for animal welfare offences and the licensing of activities involving animals, and a review of the trade and importation of exotic pets is also under way. If England’s Animal Sentience Committee is to be similarly effective, there should be mechanisms to ensure that its scrutiny of policy-making processes is taken seriously by the Government.

The Secretary of State was keen to stress that the committee’s reports will not bind the Government to any particular course of action—we have heard the same from the Minister today—and that Ministers will be free to determine the right balance between animal welfare and other considerations. While it could be argued that that is appropriate and, perhaps, understandable, it is important that Ministers fully engage with the committee’s assessments, as the Scottish Government have done by incorporating many of SAWC’s recommendations into legislation.

I would like to highlight the Scottish Government’s plans, following SAWC’s recommendations, to introduce legislation to end the harmful practice of setting glue traps—a particularly revolting form of animal abuse. The Scottish Government intend to ban the sale and use of glue traps. However, implications arising from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 present an obstacle, despite animal welfare being a devolved area.

The UK Government have backed the Glue Traps (Offences) Bill, which would ban the use of glue traps by the public in England, except by licensed professionals. However, some stakeholders remain concerned that the licensing regime is too weak and would allow continued liberal use of glue traps. The new market access regime whereby goods sold in one part of the UK—

[The Chair]

Order. This is really straying outside the scope of the Bill.

[Deidre Brock]

I am just trying to give an example of where—

[The Chair]

You are, but as Chair of the Committee I must say that it has to be relevant to this Bill. We are not here to talk about a market access Bill. We are talking about the Bill in front of us.

[Deidre Brock]

Okay, Sir Charles. Further to that, the Scottish Government hope to work through those issues, but it demonstrates how that Act can undermine devolution.

In closing, I commend those who have written in with their views, raising distressing issues such as puppy farming and unregulated microchipping and very sad cases of animal abuse. We hope that the Bill will go some way to address those issues. I also commend submissions from organisations such as the RSPCA, which, in particular, impressed me as adopting a very measured but rigorous approach to the Bill.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and to be able to address the issues in the Bill. I have to say, we have already strayed on to other areas. As I walked into the Committee Room this morning, I saw that the notice on the door has the wrong wording, which rather sums up this Government’s muddled approach to animal welfare. Many people get confused by the various pieces of legislation, with Friday mornings spent discussing each other’s pet animals and so on.

My concern about clause 1 relates to exactly what it says: it sets up a committee. It does not enshrine sentience in law. That is the key point. The Government had the opportunity to put sentience into law when my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East and other Members across the House tabled a very sensible amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I hope that the Minister will address that. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster briefly referenced that poor cat. I am not sure what the status of sentience is in our law at the moment. Perhaps the Minister could address that. The hiatus over the past two years has left us in a curious position.

In the sense that it is better than nothing, we welcome the Bill. However, it is pretty close to nothing. As the Minister said, the committee has no power to make value judgments. She might as well have paused in the middle of that sentence—the committee has no power. It is a talking shop.

We will support the Bill in so far as it goes. However, let us be clear: it is a complete betrayal of the Conservatives’ promise to pursue animal welfare issues. We do it; they talk about it.

[The Chair]

Before I call the Minister to respond, Ms McCarthy has caught my eye.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge on the Front Bench. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) tabled that amendment, which I seconded, to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. I lose track of what year it was, but I think it was late 2018. We have been doing this an awful long time.

We have discussed this on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I also proposed a ten-minute rule Bill. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), who was on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team at the time, told me that the Department wanted to legislate but that it was just looking for the right legislative vehicle. That is why I came up with my ten-minute rule Bill: “Here you are, you just need to back this.”

It was disappointing that the first three Government Back Benchers to speak on Second Reading of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill were very much against it and the doors it might open. Let us be frank: that was because they fear a cracking down on blood sports and hunting and shooting. That is why we do not have a comprehensive animal welfare Bill, and that is why we have all these little bits of legislation that are doing the rounds at the moment. The Government do not want scope to bring one in. That is what setting up a committee with limited powers is about. If we did truly recognise sentience in law, we would be questioning driven grouse shooting and all the loopholes allowing foxhunting to proceed. The Bill is a paper exercise that will do little to improve animal welfare.

11:45

[Jo Churchill]

To respond to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, it is important that Ministers take the report seriously. That is why this small Bill places on us a duty to report formally. There is a time limit for reporting formally. The committee will have the freedom to choose how it looks at how Government policy affects animals, and that reporting mechanism is what the Bill is about. That is important.

The hon. Member for Cambridge also spoke. The EFRA Committee said that there was a need for us to carefully draft the Bill. It was formerly drafted in 2017. Judicially reviewing it across the piece would mean that the committee would no longer be able to perform its function, which is to give the Minister they need in order to make a judgment, while being cognisant of all the other things that Ministers have to take into account.

I am sure that we will come on to the definition of sentience when we debate amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol East. I gently say, however, that it is not necessary to define sentience in statute in order for the Bill to work. If we accept that animals are sentient, we also accept the principle, supported by the Bill, that their needs must be properly considered in Government decision making. Providing anything more complex than that would tie the hands of the committee and make it a paper exercise—which is not what it is—so there is little reason to do that. Keeping it in this more open form means that it can look across Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Reports of the Committee

[Kerry McCarthy]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 2, page 1, line 13, leave out “adverse”.

This amendment would change the prescriptive wording of the question clause 2 requires the Animal Sentience Committee (ASC) to consider, which allows that only “adverse effects” should be considered, and would enable the ASC to be free to consider positive effects which may otherwise be overlooked.

I hope to deal with this amendment pretty quickly. As I said on Second Reading, I do not subscribe to the idea that this country is wonderful on animal welfare. Would action have been taken against a very well-known footballer for kicking his cat had he not videoed himself doing so? There are far too many examples of people with aggressive dogs. Everywhere we see examples of people treating them badly and training them to be angry, aggressive and dangerous creatures. It is clear that the RSPCA does not have the teeth—that is not a pun—to address this. We will later discuss farm animal welfare, where there are many examples of how we could do better.

The amendment would remove the word “adverse” from clause 2. As it stands, the Animal Sentience Committee can only consider the adverse effects of legislation or whatever is put in front of it. I understand that, and I understand that this is meant to be about raising the bar and making sure that future legislation does not worsen animal welfare, but I do not think there would be anything lost if it considered all the effects, rather than just the adverse effects. If the committee were to say of legislation that came before it, “We actually think this is good for improving animal welfare”, where is the harm in that? That would set down a marker to do better in other respects. If that were flagged up, other Departments—and even other Governments in devolved Administrations or, indeed, our former EU partners—might think that it had consequences for them.

The committee should be able to identify the positive effects as well as the adverse effects. Any positive effects would strengthen the case for the legislation. If the Government were having trouble getting their Back Benchers to support a Bill, I would hope that if the Animal Sentience Committee said that it was good for animal welfare, that would strengthen support for it.

The amendment is supported by groups such as Compassion in World Farming. As I have said, animal welfare really is the big forgotten element. We talk about pets—I lose track of how many debates we have about puppies, for example. It is good to be nice to puppies, but far more animals live on farms than live as pets, and I would welcome any move to try to improve their welfare, too.

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Lady for the amendment. The Animal Sentience Committee is there to improve transparency in policy making. The committee’s ultimate success will be felt in ongoing improvements to the way the Government make decisions affecting animals, and seeing improvements is the hon. Lady’s underlying argument. We agree that sentience is about both the positive and negative experiences that animals might have. Clearly, an adverse effect of a policy would include aspects that restrict positive experiences.

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, but I think the issue is one of drafting, not of misunderstanding. By way of explanation, the committee would be free to assess policy decision making for its consideration of adverse effects. A nice explanation would be in the area of nutrition for pets, for example. Whereas the negative outcomes of poor nutrition are obvious, the positive outcomes, such as ability to play, cannot be realised if pets suffer from poor nutrition. The committee is not required to limit its consideration purely to the adverse effect. By definition, it will consider both sides, but it is not necessary, for the avoidance of doubt, that the point that positive effects can be considered is reinforced in the committee’s draft terms of reference.

I sympathise with the sentiment behind the amendment, but I do not think it is necessary. I agree with the hon. Lady’s point that good exemplars may well be a stimulus to others to behave.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I just do not understand, from what the Minister has said, why the Bill cannot say “effects”. She seems to be saying that the committee would look at positive effects—all effects and adverse effects—so I do not understand why the word “adverse” has to be there, based on what she has just said.

[Jo Churchill]

With respect, this is about semantics. It is a matter of drafting, as I have said, and not about misunderstanding. It is simply not necessary to include anything other than that.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 1

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end insert—

“(4A) In preparing its reports, the Animal Sentience Committee may consult or request information from government departments and other public bodies.

(4B) Public bodies and government departments must cooperate with requests from the Animal Sentience Committee under paragraph (4A).”

This amendment would require Government departments to respond constructively to requests for information from the Animal Sentience Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and to move amendment 2 to this important piece of legislation. I wish the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster a belated happy birthday for last week, especially since she was born in Wales and us Welsh sisters have to stick together—a little plea there.

I rise to move the amendment in the names of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for North Tyneside, for Cambridge, for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), and for Bristol East. I thank House staff, the teams supporting us as Members, the Clerks and the Public Bill Office in particular for their work helping us to get here today. It is important to say that at the beginning because we tend to forget at the end, and it is important to note their work.

As we discuss another important piece of legislation in the form of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill—not the sentencing Bill as it says on the door—it is important for us to think about the scope and reach of our actions and the effectiveness of legislation that passes through the House. That is why we are moving amendment 2 and will press it to a vote. The Bill is one of a number of major pieces of animal welfare legislation that either has gone through the House, is before the House or will come back before us in the weeks ahead.

In short, amendment 2 would require Departments to respond constructively to requests for information from the Animal Sentience Committee. That is important to ensure the committee receives the information it needs to prepare its reports.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport was an excellent and energetic shadow Secretary of State, and I enjoyed working with him. Amendment 2 is very much a reflection of the points he raised during Second Reading on 18 January 2022. In his excellent speech, he quite reasonably suggested that a large Department that has been historically removed from animal welfare issues could feel empowered to ignore committee requests for information, and it could do so because there is currently no legally binding obligation on Departments to engage with the committee. That is why the amendment is so important and would be a welcome addition to the Bill.

I am sure the Minister would want to ensure the Animal Sentience Committee, in the words of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, is not “toothless”—sorry, I get told off for my pronunciation. I urge the Minister to let Labour help her. Amendment 2 provides the perfect opportunity to ensure the Bill is not a toothless piece of legislation and that the Animal Sentience Committee is a body that will deliver. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who chairs the Select Committee, is right to want a strong Bill and a strong Animal Sentience Committee. We all eagerly await to hear what the Minister thinks about that. I agree with the EFRA Committee that we want the Bill to be strong. We want the scope and reach of the committee to be strong, and the amendment would do exactly that. Does the Minister agree with us?

In preparing to move amendment 2, I caught sight of the written evidence from the campaigners Better Deal for Animals, and I ask the Minister to take a moment to reflect on it and in doing so, to give her support to amendment 2. The evidence makes the point that

“the Bill does have a weakness. The delegation of animal sentience responsibilities to the ASC, a body adjacent to rather than part of Government, creates the risk that the ASC (and with it, animal sentience issues) could be effectively ignored by decision makers. This risk was highlighted in the letter from the Chair of the EFRA Select Committee to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ahead of second reading in the Commons, which warned that ‘the ASC risks becoming simply another toothless Whitehall committee whose reports gather dust, while critical issues of animal welfare within policy-making go largely unaddressed.’”

It says that while the terms of reference

“provide some assurance that the ASC will have the independence and powers it needs to do its job, amendments to the face of the Bill would go further in ensuring that the ASC and its work is closely tied into government operations and Parliamentary business, to such an extent as to make it difficult to ignore.”

I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

As we consider the amendment, we need to think about what Compassion in World Farming said:

“Compassion continues to feel that the Bill provides a satisfactory implementation of the commitment to maintain a commitment to full regard for animal sentience in policy development after Brexit, and we welcome the fact that the Government has sought to go beyond a bare statement to establishing a mechanism to monitor its ongoing commitment. The draft terms of reference successfully clarified a number of the issues raised in the Lords, and we hope that the Bill will complete its passage without delay, leading to a successful launch of the Committee later this year and reinstating the official recognition of animal sentience in the formulation and implementation of policy.”

I share much of that view, and it is why the Labour party supports the Bill.

The amendment would ensure that the Bill is fit for purpose as it works its way through to passage without delay. As the Minister will recall, Labour Members spoke proudly in favour of the Bill—indeed, support for the Bill was stronger on this side of the House than among some Conservative Members—so I hope that the Government will meet us half way and accept the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended.

Although the amendment was tabled by the Labour party, we are not the only ones who want to see the issues that it covers put into practice. Indeed, I was interested to read the thoughts of Dr Steven McCulloch, senior lecturer in animal studies at the University of Winchester’s Centre for Animal Welfare, who remarked:

“Aside from the power to produce a report, there are no further powers provided for in the Bill. In order to conduct the three functions”

of

“animal welfare impact assessments, ethical review, Government scrutiny,”

the Animal Sentience Committee

“would require access to certain information. This information would include…advance notice of any policies that might impact sentient species…relevant documents related to the potential impacts”

of the above,

“access to the minister(s) and civil servant(s) that are leading on such policies, and…access to documents and other sources of information relating to how the Government has gone about paying ‘all due regard’ to animal welfare in policy making.”

In the light of those words, I suspect that Dr McCulloch would look favourably on the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will, too.

The Minister’s noble Friend Lord Moylan gave a curious speech in their Lordships’ House. He said:

“I was once on the Zambezi and had the opportunity to observe the crocodiles. These are largely placid animals that sit basking in the sun but, when hungry, they can move with terrifying rapidity and can kill very rapidly indeed. The person I was with, who knew about crocodiles, said—and I will stand corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, if I have got any of this wrong, of course—that the brain of a crocodile is a very small thing. The size of a pea was suggested to me, and that there was no capacity within the brain at all, neurologically, for a function that allowed for any memory. The consoling thought that was offered to me was that, since a crocodile cannot remember anything, if it did eat me, it was not personal.”

He went on:

“We are about to enact a Bill—we are close to passing it through our House—without limitation that, as I understand it, declares a crocodile to be a sentient creature; that is, a creature that can experience pleasure and pain, and science is prayed in aid to support this. I take the crocodile simply as an example, there are other creatures with brains almost as small as a crocodile and probably even smaller that are being covered and in scope of this Bill. The difficulty of this is, they have very limited functions, partly because the size of the brain simply limits the functions that they can actually have.”

Amendment 2 is so important because, as Lord Moylan continued,

“No one doubts, as a matter of science, that a crocodile, as I say taken as an example, will respond in a certain way if a sufficiently strong stimulus is applied to it. That is a neurological reaction explicable by the movement of chemicals and electrons through the nervous system and in what passes for the crocodile’s brain. What we are being asked to do here goes way beyond that. How can this be extended scientifically—not by analogy, not by empathy, but scientifically—to include the concept of pain in a crocodile as we understand pain.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 December 2021; Vol. 816, c. 1735.]

That is more than enough from the noble Lord.

I want the Bill to be effective and snappy—to continue with the crocodile inspiration. I know that crocodiles in the Zambezi would be supportive of amendment 2, and that is why it would be a welcome addition to the Bill. I urge the Minister to join us in our support for the amendment. Let us make the Bill fit for purpose.

[Daniel Zeichner]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon Friend, who made an important set of points about this amendment. I would like to move from crocodiles to pigs because, frankly, what is happening across the fields of the country is ghastly. While there may be questions over the size of a crocodile’s brain, I think we all know that pigs are intelligent creatures.

My point in raising that is that, with this amendment, a range of Government Departments would be driven to have to respond in a crisis like this. It has an awful effect on the people having to kill pigs in fields—we think possibly some 35,000 so far. I must also say, there was a dreadful response from DEFRA to a written question from the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton, just on DEFRA’s basic knowledge of the numbers—“We don’t know; we don’t ask”.

A much stronger piece of legislation like this, driving the committee, would have forced Government Departments to have actually acted. I notice that the Minister did not respond to my earlier question about the current situation of sentience. We in the Opposition all know that pigs are sentient, but the hiatus in the legal setup means that it is very hard to hold the Government to account for the awful set of circumstances that are unfolding.

[Jo Churchill]

I agree that this is an important piece of legislation and, like the hon. Member for Newport West, I hope it will go forward in a timely way. I thank the EFRA Committee for the work that it has done in helping to guide us in ensuring that the Bill is as precise as it is. It is important to understand that there are two duties here.

The hon. Lady argued that the Animal Sentience Committee needs the power to compel Government Departments and public bodies to provide any information that the committee requests. While I would agree that it is key for the committee to have the necessary information to do its job, placing an additional duty on Departments to provide the committee with documents would just create additional grounds for judicial reviews. If a Department or public body was seen not to fully comply with the requests made by the Animal Sentience Committee, there would be grounds for a challenge.

The Bill has been carefully considered and worded to give meaningful effect to the principle of animal sentience without getting tied up in legal challenges. We want the committee to focus on current and future policy. Its aim is to improve transparency in decision making and in the policy-making process. The committee will build on and improve the evidence base, which I have referred to, that informs Government policy.

[Ruth Jones]

The Minister talks about the evidence base, but how can the committee develop an evidence base if it submits a request to another Department, but that Department sees fit to ignore it?

[Jo Churchill]

I will come on to that in my answer because, arguably, the one thing the committee does have up its sleeve is the ability to name and shame if it is not responded to. That is the key thing to keep there.

The scope of the Bill covers all central Government policy decisions, from formulation to implementation. It aims to support the policy-making decision process, rather than operational decisions made by public bodies outside of those Departments. We have kept the scope to Ministerial Departments because we want the committee to focus its scrutiny on the key policy decisions affecting animal welfare.

That is why, as set out in the terms of reference, which the hon. Lady referred to, the committee’s secretariat will assist in raising awareness of the committee’s role and in forming an overview of relevant policy decisions. That work has already started in the Department to ensure that other Departments, at an official level, are ready, and there, to establish effective communication—which arguably was the underlying ask of the amendment—with the Committee. Guidance will also be provided to Departments on their responsibilities under the Bill. We believe that to be the most effective way in which to ensure that the committee has all the information that it needs to do its role. There are two powers in the Bill, not just one: we establish the committee and, crucially, that responsibility on a Minister—the duty to reply.

I am sure that Governments will provide the committee with relevant information, if requested, and if the committee struggles to engage with a particular Department or to receive information, it will be free to highlight that in its response. Ministers will then have their duty to respond to those reports. I am confident that no Minister will want their Department to be highlighted as unco-operative in the area of animal welfare. I therefore believe that the Bill, and the functions and the powers that it confers on the Animal Sentience Committee, are sufficient as drafted.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Minister for her comments. We are still not satisfied, so we will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 2

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

[Ruth Jones]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert—

“(8) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the commencement of this Act, set out a timetabled plan for the extension of Animal Sentience Committee scope to any other public bodies deemed relevant.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consider extending the Animal Sentience Committee to public bodies.

The amendment is in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton, my right hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), and my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West, for North Tyneside, for Cambridge, for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Bristol East, for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), and my hon. Friend the Labour Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), among others listed on the amendment paper.

The amendment is self-explanatory, but I will take the opportunity to speak to it briefly and, I hope, to persuade Conservative colleagues in Committee to support it. I gently remind the Minister that the Bill has the support of the Opposition, but we want to make it even better, stronger and go further. Like the excellent amendment 3, which will be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, amendment 4 proposes a realistic and pragmatic addition to the Bill. All things being equal, it should be welcomed by all colleagues in Committee.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consider extending the scope of the Animal Sentience Committee to public bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is no longer on the Bill Committee—we all wish him well in his new role—but I wish to quote him. In a strong speech on Second Reading, he said,

“on scope, I know that Ministers want the Bill to apply first to Government Departments—to the main Departments of State—but there is a strong case for Ministers to set out how they would accelerate its roll-out to apply it to non-departmental public bodies. For instance, I find it hard to justify the idea that the Bill will apply to the Department for Work and Pensions before it applies to Natural England and the Environment Agency. That does not make much sense, so I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the timetable for applying the Bill to every single non-departmental public body, and particularly to all the bodies in DEFRA…to ensure that they are within the scope of the Animal Sentience Committee.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 255.]

How could anyone disagree with that?

The Minister would do us all a favour by making it clear that extending the Animal Sentience Committee to public bodies would be really effective. If she will not support the amendment, I hope she will explain why. The amendment would bring some common sense to the Bill, and it would make for a joined-up approach that will deliver real results. That is what the Bill must be about—it must be about results, delivery and making the committee fit for purpose.

00:05

In its excellent submission to the EFRA Committee, the RSPCA said:

“The Bill is novel and important because, for the first time in the UK, it requires an animal welfare impact assessment to be undertaken by Government Ministries when making policy. Such a system already exists in New Zealand and the Netherlands; establishing this in the UK is an important step for animal welfare, restoring this country’s position as a world leader in this area. A balancing exercise already exists for many environmental considerations, such as the protection of endangered species within the planning process.”

I thank the RSPCA for its report and submission, for all the work it does in standing up for animal welfare and supporting the Bill, and for delivering for our animals and wildlife for so many years. I note that Her Majesty the Queen is patron of the RSPCA. In the week that Her Majesty marks her accession to the throne, I know that hon. Members, in considering amendment 4, will want to send her our appreciation and thanks for a lifetime of service.

I want the Minister to know that amendment 4 would help her to meet the aims and objectives of the Bill. We are charting a new course, which is why many Opposition Members are confused that some Government Members do not welcome the Bill. We are making history, and we have the chance to set an example now and in the months and years ahead. By extending the remit of the new Animal Sentience Committee to public bodies, we would be delivering a sensible and coherent plan to maintain and protect the sentience of animals in all parts of our national life. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, from whom I know we will hear more later, has form on this issue. Back in 2020, she moved her excellent ten-minute rule Bill attempting to put sentience into law while at the same time covering public bodies. Once again, she was ahead of the curve.

Extending the ASC to cover public bodies is something that the campaign organisation Better Deal for Animals strongly argued for in 2019. It stands to reason that the Animal Sentience Committee should be able to consider whether a public body that regularly has an impact on animals has taken welfare into account in its decision making, which is why I have tabled amendment 4. Let us take Natural England as an example of why the amendment is important. When Natural England decides on contentious issues such as licensing the shooting of game birds, the welfare of those birds as sentient beings should be a factor in its consideration. The amendment would ensure that the ASC is able to scrutinise whether the welfare of the game birds has been taken into consideration. The Minister will see that the wording of amendment 4 is intended to be helpful. It gives a year for the Minister to provide the timetable for the extension of the committee’s scope to other public bodies, so there is time to prepare.

Finally, I want to say a word about the British Veterinary Association. In advance of this morning’s sitting, I read the BVA’s policy statement on the recognition of animals as sentient beings with great interest. It says:

“Recognising animals as sentient beings provides the basis for our moral concern for the welfare of animals. Animals are living beings with the capacity to have feelings, including pain and pleasure, so they should be legally protected. This is an important issue for the veterinary profession.”

The statement continues:

“BVA supports placing a duty to consider animal welfare on public authorities when formulating and implementing policies in line with the duty that exists within Article 13 of the TFEU. This duty should be inclusive of wild animals, animals used in laboratories, sport and recreation, farm animals, Equidae, companion animals, and animals kept as part of zoological collections. This duty on public authorities would complement the duties placed on individuals by the UK’s Animal Welfare Acts.”

The BVA is correct, and the amendment will give effect to its thoughts and those of many campaigners who welcome the Bill and want to see it strengthened. We would be giving effect to our collective moral concern for animals, and I urge the Minister and all her colleagues to support the amendment.

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Member for Newport West for her co-operation; I know that she is merely trying to assist. At this point, I would like to associate myself with her comments on Her Majesty the Queen.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Animal Sentience Committee’s scope and public bodies, because we gave a great deal of consideration to both the scope and appropriateness. We expect the committee to focus on Government policy decisions that could have a significant impact on animal welfare. As we have previously indicated, that is expected to be in the region of six individual policy decisions per year. Given the breadth of government, the committee will need to be selective in what it scrutinises. It is unlikely that these kinds of decisions will be made outside ministerial Departments, because the vast majority of policy decisions with a significant bearing on animal welfare will be made within the Departments themselves.

The Bill is designed to create timely, proportionate and targeted mechanisms for holding Ministers to account. By their nature, and relative to core Departments, non-departmental public bodies operate at arm’s length from Ministers. Extending this committee’s remit beyond central Government Departments would not be targeted and so would not be in line with the aims of what we are trying to achieve. By the same token, we will not ask the committee to scrutinise policy decisions that may be made at local authority level, for example, because that would impose an unnecessary workload on the committee and, arguably, on our hard-working local authorities. It is unclear who would then answer in Parliament to any reports that came forward—that might be issued by, say, a local authority or a body—because Ministers cannot answer for a report and decisions that they did not make. For those reasons, the Government consider that the current scope of the Bill is the right one.

[Ruth Jones]

Given the NGOs’ comments and encouragement to the Opposition to lay this amendment, we will push it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 3

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jo Churchill]

Clause 2 tasks the Animal Sentience Committee with publishing reports that give its opinion on whether, or to what extent, Ministers have had all due regard to the needs of animals as sentient beings when formulating and implementing Government policy. The clause allows the committee to include recommendations on how this might be done in the future development of a policy in question. Lastly, the clause requires that the committee’s reports are published.

These measures sit at the heart of our proposals to create a proportionate and timely accountability mechanism that rests with Parliament, rather than the courts. The committee will have the powers to publish reports—importantly, including critical reports—on the Government policy decision-making process. However, the committee’s powers are well defined so as to ensure that it complements that decision-making process by giving additional evidence. The clause and the wider Bill do not authorise the committee to dictate or advocate a particular policy position, or critique how a Minister might decide to balance competing policy considerations. Ministers will continue to decide the appropriate balance between animal welfare and other important considerations when making decisions.

In the event that a committee report was critical of Government performance, Parliament would be able to consider the report and the Government’s written response that must be laid before Parliament within three months of the report’s publication. After considering them, the decision would rest with hon. Members in this House and noble Lords in the other place on whether to make further inquiries on the subject using the mechanisms available.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Response to reports

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, at end insert—

“(4) A Minister of the Crown must make a motion in each House of Parliament in relation to each response to a report from the Animal Sentience Committee laid before Parliament under paragraph (1).”.

This amendment would require the Minister to give an oral response to Animal Sentience Committee reports, creating an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of report recommendations and the Government’s response.

Clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to lay a response to reports produced by the Animal Sentience Committee before Parliament within three months of a report’s publication, as the Minister has outlined. We absolutely accept that it is right that the Secretary of State should be tasked with that responsibility. The reports will consider, as laid out in clause 2(2),

“whether, or to what extent, the government is having, or has had, all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect”—

despite our attempts—

“on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”

The committee may, therefore, criticise the Government’s policy-making processes. I noticed that the Minister acknowledged the possibility that the Government could be criticised in some circumstances, and I welcome that possibility. The committee could applaud the Government, or provide recommendations for improvements.

It is right that the Secretary of State responds to the findings. Where shortcomings have been identified, the Government absolutely should explain what went wrong; where there are recommendations, the Government must inform the House of their response. However, those of us who have been here a little while know how the House works. There are many opportunities for things to be made not exactly immediately obvious to the wider world, or even to Members of the House.

I have not been in Parliament that long, but I remember consideration of the Agriculture Bill. There was a lengthy discussion on the food security report. The matter went to the House of Lords. There was an argument about when the report should be produced—every three years, or annually, or every five years, and all the rest of it. Lo and behold, the Government produced that report on the very last day that they were permitted to do so, just before Christmas—as Governments do, of course—when people were rushing to get their planes and trains. It was a massive report of 300 pages, and obviously there was little opportunity just before Christmas for the wider world to consider it properly. What were the opportunities to consider that report? We found that it took a Westminster Hall debate, with a Minister reluctantly responding to criticisms at the end of the debate. The fact that the Secretary of State said one thing on one occasion and the Minister, when challenged, said something else, shows that there was not really any great opportunity for scrutiny.

This is a governance question. We know that, in the real world, a lot of this does not work. Given that some of the responses will be written, we know that there will not be much opportunity for scrutiny. We in the Opposition think that animal welfare and the humane treatment of animals is too important to fall into that trap and we think that, without an opportunity for the House to properly scrutinise and discuss reports, the Committee’s findings will simply not be given the attention they merit.

The amendment would require a Minister to make a motion in both Houses of Parliament, which would provide a genuine opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. For the committee to have any heft, the Government cannot simply disregard its reports if they are politically or otherwise inconvenient. We think that it is right that “all due regard” be given to a range of factors and that the Government must explain how they have weighed up the competing demands.

We fully acknowledge that there are competing demands. This is not simple stuff. We also absolutely accept that the Bill does not change any existing legislation; it simply specifies that the Government must give “all due regard” to the ways in which policy may impact the welfare of animals. What we have heard from the discussions in the other place, and on Second Reading, is that that is open to a considerable amount of interpretation. It is right that both Houses debate and discuss the extent to which they believe “all due regard” has been met. I would think the Government would welcome the amendment, since it would actually give them further opportunity on their media grid to drip out some good news stories about the wonderful things they are doing. Actually, we think the opposite is the case. We do not think they want genuine scrutiny. The amendment could attract some interesting cross-party support as we goes forward.

12:30

[Grahame Morris]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point, Mr Walker. I believe, Sir Charles, that you were part of the Procedure Committee which created opportunities for Commons Select Committees to make statements and answer questions in the House, which is a welcome development. The amendment is sensible, as are all of the suggestions from the Opposition Front Bench. I hope the Minister will give it sympathetic consideration; I think there is a lot to commend it.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. By definition, all Opposition Front-Bench amendments are sensible—I will tell you the ones that are not later. My hon. Friend, too, brings great experience on this, and he makes an important point. Those of us who have gradually begun to understand parliamentary procedure over the process of being here know that he is right; proper consideration of Select Committee reports in the Chamber does make a real difference. That is what we are trying to get at with the amendment.

I hope, despite the nature of this debate, that Ministers will go away and think about this point. We have noticed that there are very real differences of opinion on the Conservative Benches on this issue. I think the amendment would give voice to some of the staunch critics of the Bill. I do not think some of them understand it entirely, but I think it might settle some of their concerns if they knew they had the opportunity to raise them in this way. As the Better Deal for Animals coalition said in their briefing to parliamentarians:

“Criticisms of the Bill during its passage to date appear to have been based on a misunderstanding of the role of the Animal Sentience Committee.”

Members will be surprised to hear that I am on the side of the Minister on this point, because I agree that it should be reiterated that the new Committee will not have the power to amend or bring about new legislation. It cannot compel the Government to take any particular course of action. I understand the points the Minister is making, and I am not sure that everyone who has taken part in this debate has fully appreciated that.

The amendment would provide an opportunity for Members of both Houses to provide input and scrutinise the Government’s success in weighing up competing demands and, crucially, their success in considering the sentience of animals. For the Bill to have any real impact, we believe that Members must have a proper opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s response to the Animal Sentience Committee’s reports. Going back to my opening points, this could so easily be just another committee. Unless it has power, it will not work, and that would mean that sentience had not been carried across in the way that many people believed it to have been.

The amendment would only strengthen and further the claimed aims of the Bill. If the Government oppose it, I have to say that they will reveal their true intent.

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for raising the matter of responses to the Animal Sentience Committee report with the amendment. I agree that the committee’s report warrants parliamentary attention. That is why Ministers will be required to lay a written response before Parliament within three months of a report’s publication. This is central to the targeted, timely and proportionate mechanism we are seeking to establish. However, the hon. Member will not be surprised to hear that I do not believe it would be proportionate to clog up the parliamentary timetable with an automatic debate on every single report.

Hon. Members and noble Lords in the other place should decide for themselves the extent to which each report needs more discussion. They will have the usual means at their disposal to bring in Ministers to answer questions: parliamentary questions, Select Committee hearings, Westminster Hall debates and business questions. The EFRA Committee, when looking at this particular subject, asked my noble Friend Lord Benyon to come in front of it, in order to probe him more. We should also allow for the possibility that the committee, in some of its reports, may be satisfied that the Department in question has had all due regard to animal welfare and as such makes no recommendations. I am sure that Ministers would be delighted, as the hon. Member for Cambridge slightly alluded to, to have the platform to speak about such success on the Floor of the House, but I gently say that that is not the best use of parliamentary time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

That was pretty much the answer I expected, but I gently observe that, in a couple of years’ time, when the position is reversed, I suspect the Minister might not think that it clogs up the parliamentary timetable to challenge the Government.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 4

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jo Churchill]

The clause requires a Minister whose Department has been subject to an Animal Sentience Committee report to lay a written report before Parliament. The response must be submitted within three months of the publication of the report, excluding periods in which Parliament is not sitting. This will give weight to the committee reports. Ministers will not be able to ignore them. There may be occasions when Ministers do not agree with the findings and recommendations of the committee. The clause gives those Ministers the opportunity to explain their views and the reasons therein. If Members or peers are dissatisfied with the Minister’s explanation, they have the usual means at their disposal to pursue their concerns, as we discussed.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I have a genuine question about the timing of introducing legislation. I think we all know that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was rushed in and is imperfect. There is obviously much to be said for taking time and seeking advice. I am concerned that the Government will propose something, then the committee has to look at it, then the Secretary of State has three months to reply. If the Government were seeking to legislate or change policy quite quickly, could this mechanism be used to drag things out far longer than they should be?

[Jo Churchill]

I would say no. The formulation and thought process of legislation feels like it takes considerable time, as we all know. This mechanism would not, in any circumstance I can envisage, be used to slow down the passage of anything.

Crucially, the committee supports Parliament’s scrutiny of Ministers without creating an undue risk of legal challenge. We learned from the EFRA Committee’s valuable feedback on the earlier version of the Bill how this is the case. Our approach means that Ministers will be accountable to Parliament, as is right and proper, and not to the courts. We feel that this creates a balanced, timely, proportionate accountability mechanism, allowing Ministers to make their own judgments on the best policy decisions to take and giving Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise those issues based on expert advice that comes forward, hence the reason for the committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jo Churchill]

The clause provides for the inclusion of the Animal Sentience Committee in the list of organisations subject to the provisions of the Public Records Act 1958 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Animal Sentience Committee is designed to support Parliament in scrutinising the policy decision making, and it is therefore right that the committee is transparent and accountable in the way that it operates.

We have sought to balance the transparency of the committee with its effectiveness by ensuring that Government Departments can disclose information to it at early stages of policy decision making. The same checks and balances apply to the disclosure of sensitive information via the committee as to the Department with which it will work. The committee will receive dedicated secretariat support from my Department, which will assist in processing any of those Freedom of Information Act requests.

In addition to the transparency provisions in the Bill, we will ensure that the committee’s supporting documents and the minutes of the meeting are published online to aid that transparency and scrutiny.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Interpretation

[Kerry McCarthy]

I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 5, page 3, line 9, at end insert—

‘(6) For the purposes of section 2 (2) in this Act, “sentient beings” means a being capable of sentience, where “sentience” means the capacity to have feelings, including pain, pleasure, hunger, thirst, warmth, joy, comfort and excitement.’

This amendment would insert a definition of sentience into the Bill for purposes of reference, based on the definition included in research commissioned by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs entitled “Review of the Evidence of Sentience in Cephalopod Molluscs and Decapod Crustaceans”.

The amendment would basically insert a definition of “sentient beings”, which is the phrase used in the legislation. That definition, as I have put it, is:

“‘sentient beings’ means a being capable of sentience, where ‘sentience’ means the capacity to have feelings, including pain, pleasure, hunger, thirst, warmth, joy, comfort and excitement.”

I know that other definitions might be proposed, but that definition was lifted from London School of Economics research entitled “Review of the Evidence of Sentience in Cephalopod Molluscs and Decapod Crustaceans”, which was commissioned by DEFRA and was part of the discussions about whether they should be included in the legislation. I am very pleased that they are now included. That is the definition that I have used.

The Minister said in speaking to clause 1 stand part that it was not usual to include definitions in the Bill, but in my experience, it is pretty common. The “Interpretation” clause states:

“In this Act ‘animal’ means”,

and goes on to define what an animal is, and it also defines “vertebrate” and “invertebrate” by referring to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, so I think it is quite common to include definitions. On Second Reading, some quite spurious points were made, and from my recollection of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, when we talked about sentience, people threw around slightly silly things. I think it would be helpful to have a definition in the Bill, and I cannot quite see what the argument against that would be.

A definition of “sentience” would give the Animal Sentience Committee an official reference point when considering the effects of legislation, and that is a good framework to work within. Without a definition, justifying decisions could prove problematic. A definition would shorten the process because the committee would not have to argue about whether an issue related to animal sentience.

I worry that sentience is sometimes seen as being just about feeling pain. Obviously, a lot of animal welfare discussions are about cruelty to animals, and that is what the public tend to focus on most, but as I have said, feeling pleasure comes back to the idea of the positive effects of things. We know from debates about caged birds and sow crates, or just about the way farm animals are kept, that animals—particularly intelligent animals such as pigs—need stimulation. It is actually very cruel to keep them somewhere where they cannot exhibit their natural behaviour.

Defining “sentience” would make it clear that the legislation is not just about stopping animals suffering pain. It is an apolitical expert decision, sourced from Government-commissioned research. The Government accepted that research when agreeing to include crustaceans, molluscs and so on in the Bill. The amendment would help the Bill and make it a better piece of legislation. I am interested to hear why the Minister does not agree.

12:44

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East for moving the amendment, by which she asks the important question of why we are not putting in a fixed definition of “sentience”. I reiterate that this is about the positive and the negative.

Our scientific understanding of sentience has come a long way in recent years—the hon. Lady referred to the LSE report—and will continue to evolve. The Government approach will be led by the science. We therefore decided that we would not include a fixed definition of “sentience” in the Bill because, in the course of time, it will become out of date. As I said, for the Bill to work, it is not necessary to define “sentience” in statute. If we accept that those animals are sentient, we accept the principle supported by the Bill that their welfare needs should be properly considered in Government policy decision making, so there is no need to increase the complexity.

This is the nub of the matter: if the Animal Sentience Committee wishes to adopt a working definition of “sentience”, it will be absolutely free to do so. One of the first acts of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission—a similar body, to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith alluded earlier—was to prepare its own working definition of “sentience”. So, should the committee wish to do the same, that would be a discussion for the experts to have, rather than for us in Government. I do not think that any of us would say that we are experts in defining; it is for the committee to choose.

[Deidre Brock]

I thank the Minister for mentioning the SAWC’s definition of “sentience”. She is correct that that happened in the early days after its formation. Will she require that of the committee? Will that be something to be discussed and required of the committee when it sits in future?

[Jo Churchill]

I may be wrong, but I do not think that the Scottish Government determined that that should be one of the SAWC’s first acts. I reiterate: it should be for the committee to decide whether it wishes to do the same and to have a working definition. The whole tenor of the Bill is to be future-proofed.

[Grahame Morris]

rose—

[The Chair]

Order. Had you sat down, Minister?

[Jo Churchill]

I apologise, I did not see the hon. Gentleman.

[Grahame Morris]

I was caught on the horns of a dilemma there, because the Minister was answering the earlier intervention. I apologise if I missed this in the explanatory notes, but do we have any information on the composition of the committee, on the nature of the people, individuals or expert opinions who will make up the committee?

[Jo Churchill]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the terms of reference. We do not want to be overly prescriptive about its make-up, nor do we want to be over-prescriptive in case, for example, experts were to come from the devolved nations. This is an expert committee to give sound scientific advice on which Ministers will make a decision. That is referred to clearly in the terms of reference.

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is an illogical argument. If we were to follow that through, there would be no point having amended the Bill to incorporate the recommendations of the report. It would have been easy to say, “The committee are the experts, they can decide whether molluscs and crustaceans are sentient beings.” We put things in legislation to steer the agenda of the committee. That is the very point.

I worry that the committee will be open to challenge. We saw misinformed hostility from many quarters on Second Reading, and I would have thought that the Government could solidify the fact that the committee is there to look at things other than just overt instances of animal cruelty. It would really help the experts on the committee to do their job if we were to define sentience in the Bill, so I will press the amendment to a vote.

[The Chair]

And we will get to that, but before we do, I think the official Opposition would like to comment briefly.

[Ruth Jones]

Thank you, Sir Charles. I rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, who made an excellent speech that clearly and articulately explained how important the definition is and why the amendment is so important. The definition is the key to understanding the whole Bill and how the committee will work. I vividly remember the proceedings on the Environment Bill, when we were told, “Don’t worry; the explanatory notes will explain all.” However, that is not the same as legislation. Explanatory notes are separate, which is why the Opposition are so keen to have the definition enshrined in the legislation. That is why we will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 5

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

[Grahame Morris]

On a point of order, Sir Charles. I am sorry if I am asking an obvious question, but when the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith says “no vote”, is that recorded as a positive abstention?

[The Chair]

It is recorded as exactly what it is. The hon. Lady could say “abstention”, for example, but it is not recorded. It does not appear in the record.

Thank you, Mr Morris, for the point of order—it was a genuine point of order and required an answer. That was actually the first one I have had in 11 years, so thank you, Ms Brock, as well.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jo Churchill]

The clause sets out what types of animals are covered by the provisions of the Bill and are thus subject to consideration by the Animal Sentience Committee. It covers any vertebrate other than homo sapiens. The science is clear that vertebrate animals—those with a spine—can experience pain and suffering.

Furthermore, in 2020, my Department commissioned an independent review of the available scientific evidence on sentience in decapod crustaceans, such as crabs and lobsters, and in the cephalopod class, which includes octopus, cuttlefish and squid. There has been much scientific interest in the sentience of such creatures for a number of years, because they are unusual among invertebrates in having complex nervous systems—one of the prerequisites of sentience. The review considered some 300 pieces of research, applying a robust set of criteria to reach its conclusions. On publishing the review’s findings last October, we accepted its central recommendation that, given the strong evidence of such creatures’ sentience, they should be included in the legislation.

We tabled an amendment to the clause in the other place, and we are pleased that it enjoyed cross-party support. However, we know that there is new scientific evidence emerging all the time, which is why we have sought to future-proof the Bill with a delegated power for Ministers to add species to the definition of animals by regulations, using an affirmative statutory instrument. Such a measure would be based on scientific evidence that particular species of invertebrates are sentient.

We have no plans to use the delegated power in the near future. The sentience of decapods and cephalopods was the subject of considerable scientific research over many years, and we are not expecting compelling evidence on other species to emerge overnight. However, it is important to be able to keep the Bill’s scope up to date, in line with scientific developments.

Ministers will not be able to amend the Bill’s scope on a whim. Regulations laid under the delegated power would be subject to parliamentary approval via the affirmative procedure, and Parliament would rightly expect more compelling scientific evidence to be brought forward to justify any extension. If it were not convinced, Parliament would be able to vote down the regulations.

The clause therefore sets the scope of the Bill to cover creatures for which there is strong scientific evidence of sentience, and it includes a delegated power to keep the scope up to date with emerging evidence, subject to sensible checks and balances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Extent, commencement and short title

Amendment made: 1, in clause 6, page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (5).—(Jo Churchill.)

This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted in the Lords.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Jo Churchill]

The clause sets out the territorial extent and the commencement provisions for the Bill following Royal Assent. Clause 2(6) provides that the Animal Sentience Committee may only issue reports on policy decisions of the UK Government. That means that the committee may issue a report on any policy for which UK Government Ministers are responsible. The committee cannot issue a report on any policy that relates to a legislative provision falling within a devolved competence. Animal welfare policy is devolved. The Bill’s provisions will come into force on such days as the Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, appoint.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Duty to prepare an Animal Sentience Strategy

“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare an Animal Sentience Strategy.

(2) The Strategy under paragraph (1) must set out how Her Majesty’s Government plans to have regard to animal sentience including plans to—

(a) respond to Animal Sentience Committee reports,

(b) require animal welfare impact assessments, and

(c) commission independent research.

(3) The Strategy must set out policies that the Secretary of State may ask the Animal Sentience Committee to review.

(4) The Secretary of State must publish an annual statement on progress on the Animal Sentience Strategy.

(5) An annual statement under subsection (4) must include a summary of changes in policy or implementation that have occurred in response to an Animal Sentience Committee report over the last 12 months.

(6) A Minister of the Crown must make a motion in each House of Parliament in relation to the annual statement.

(7) The Secretary of State must publish a revised Animal Sentience Strategy at the start of each parliament.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to produce an animal sentience strategy, and to provide an annual update to Parliament on progress against it.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is tabled in my name and those of many of my colleagues. In many ways, I will go back to where I started, by referring to the comments by my colleague in the other place, Baroness Hayman. She explained very lucidly that the Bill in its current form provides

“a weaker set of responsibilities”

than provided for in EU law and

“effectively outsources the bulk of animal sentience responsibility to the committee, which can make recommendations to decision-makers but sits outside the decision-making process.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2021; Vol. 813, c. GC285.]

That is an important point, which we have already referenced, and I believe that it should be heard loud and clear—put up in lights, in fact. The Conservatives have weakened the law on animal sentience. [Interruption.] They may not like it, but it is the truth.

Now, there is a solution—there is salvation, and I am going to offer it. The amendment tabled by Labour in the other place goes some way towards rectifying that problem. Again, as Baroness Hayman explained,

“Article 13 imposed a direct legal obligation on the EU and its member states to pay full regard to animal sentience. It was a direct responsibility on decision-makers, in the form of government Ministers.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2021; Vol. 813, c. GC284.]

I have already described how the Bill is weakened by the requirement for the Secretary of State to provide written responses to Animal Sentience Committee reports rather than oral responses. The Government chose not to take that opportunity.

The Bill places indirect responsibilities on Ministers; they must simply establish and maintain a committee and lay written responses, rather than assuming direct responsibilities on these matters, which is what we would like to see. This is clearly an inadequate replacement for the duties and responsibilities enshrined in article 13 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, and that is what we seek to address through the new clause.

The new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to produce an animal sentience strategy and to provide annual updates to Parliament on progress against it. It would significantly improve the Bill by increasing the heft given to the Animal Sentience Committee and ensuring that its work does not, as I fear it might, end up being merely symbolic.

13:00

If the Government cared as deeply about animal sentience as they claim, they would join us in setting out this fully formed strategy. Not only would a strategy provide guidance and direction for the Animal Sentience Committee, as my hon. and good Friend the Member for Bristol East suggests, but the committee would hold Ministers to account much more robustly than the Bill currently provides for. Under the current weak proposals, the Government “respond” to the committee’s reports, and in those responses, all they can do is express contentions or commitments to future policy formulation and implementation. As I have already spelled out, there is no mechanism for Parliament to hold the Government to account in this respect. Annual reporting on an overarching strategy, progress against which could be debated properly in Parliament, would at least provide for that.

As I mentioned, we are aware that some Government Members are critical of the Bill. I suspect that they were not invited by the Whips to join this Committee, but they are still out there. I hope that, on Report, they might notice and be attracted by some of our propositions. Annual reporting would provide opportunities for parliamentarians to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the Animal Sentience Committee and to debate the issues more widely.

I think we can all agree that these are complicated and intricate matters; they are sensitive and important as well. We are talking about the ability to feel pain and pleasure, joy and sorrow. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the most up-to-date scientific findings are incorporated in the Government’s decisions. Much of the confusion could be avoided if the Government were able to commission more independent research in this area, and the new clause would strengthen that ability. I encourage Government Members to think seriously about supporting our amendment.

[Jo Churchill]

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman, whom I thank for proposing new clause 1, that while I agree that the Bill should be science-led, he will not be surprised that I disagree entirely that we are watering down anything. Given that we are robustly discussing animal sentience, how seriously the issue is taken in this place could not be plainer to the outside word.

I understand why the hon. Gentleman might want to require the Secretary of State to publish an animal sentience strategy and undertake the actions associated with it, but the Bill underpins the action plan for animal welfare published in May last year. Of course the Government want the new committee to perform its role to the best of its ability, and we will work with Members to ensure that it does just that, but the independence of that committee is vital. A strategy in which Ministers set out policies that they want the committee to consider would limit its ability to set its own agenda. It is vital to make sure that the committee is led by science and by experts, and that it has its own ability to define sentience, if it wishes to, and to set its own agenda.

The committee’s reports will be publicly available and will provide a record of policies that it has considered. As is usual, the committee will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the Public Records Act, as laid out in clause 4. Rather than prescribe a list of tasks for the committee, we want to ensure that it can shape its role in an independent manner, and that its influence in highlighting the impact on animal welfare of key policy decisions is maximised and determined by its own evaluation of where it could add value. DEFRA will support the committee in identifying such opportunities, but it is important that experts have that scope.

We do not propose to require Government Departments to produce animal welfare impact assessments, but my Department is committed to working with its counterparts across the Government to develop the right tools to assess the effect of policy decisions on animal welfare so that there is a cohesive look at that matter. Departments will have good reason to engage with the process as that will help to prevent the committee from producing negative reports, as well as aiding learning across the Government. The Bill as drafted, alongside the action plan for animal welfare, will achieve many of the intentions of the new clause while retaining the committee’s flexibility and discretion to focus on the areas that it deems most important.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will respond briefly, as you would encourage me to do, Sir Charles.

I listened closely to the Minister’s response, and while I struggled with some of the civil service gobbledegook, I think she said that some of the things that we are looking to achieve will happen, which we welcome. In the end, however, I can come to no conclusion but that this is a weak proposition. I have asked the Minister three times why the Government did not choose to bring across the stronger version of the legislation—goodness me, they brought plenty of other legislation across—but that has not been explained, and there must be a reason. The Minister also has not been able to answer the question of where sentience currently stands, so the only conclusion we can come to is that the Bill needs to be beefed up and made much stronger. I can assure you, Sir Charles, that in a couple of years’ time, it will be.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Division 6

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[The Chair]

I just want to tell new colleagues what the Clerk’s note reads: “At this point, Members may wish to raise bogus points of order or debate the Question in order to raise issues concerning proceedings of the Bill, to thank officials, etc. This is permissible within reason as long as the final Question on report is put and agreed to.”

Would anyone like to say nice things about officials? I will thank my Clerk, the Hansard writers and, of course, the Doorkeepers for their outstanding service.

[Nickie Aiken]

May I share your sentiments, Sir Charles, and say thank you to our parliamentary staff here and across the estate?

[Jo Churchill]

I add my voice to that, but I would also like to thank my Bill team and members of my private office, who are nothing but always by my side, for which I thank them.

[Deidre Brock]

Many thanks to the Clerks and the Doorkeepers, and to Hansard for taking down our words today.

[The Chair]

And, I suspect, last but not least—shadow Minister Ruth Jones.

[Ruth Jones]

Thank you, Sir Charles; I am not going to miss this opportunity.

I echo the thanks that have been given, and I would also like to place on record our thanks to our staff. The Bill has been interestingly timetabled, and we have been working under pressure, so it has been useful to have our staff so on board. I also thank you, Sir Charles, for your excellent chairing.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

13:09

Committee rose.

Written evidence reported to the House

AWSB01 RSPCA

AWSB02 Compassion in World Farming

AWSB03 Better Deal for Animals coalition

AWSB04 Crustacean Compassion

AWSB05 Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust

AWSB06 Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation

Westminster Hall

Thursday 10th February 2022 Westminster Hall

Thursday 10 February 2022

[Clive Efford in the Chair]

Backbench Business

Thursday 10th February 2022 Westminster Hall

Access to NHS Dentistry

Thursday 10th February 2022 Westminster Hall

13:30

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to wear masks. There is clearly a lot of interest in the debate. We will work out roughly how long people have to speak, but I do not intend to impose a strict time limit, unless people abuse the timings. We will give you an indication of how long to speak for, and if you could roughly stick to it that would be really helpful. I call Peter Aldous to move the motion.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered access to NHS dentistry.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for her work in helping to secure it.

NHS dentistry has been the No. 1 issue in my inbox for the past nine to 10 months. This is a national crisis, though the problem in my constituency—in Lowestoft and Waveney—is acute. Dentists have retired, which has led to resources and dental capacity being taken away from the area, notwithstanding the increased need and demand following the pandemic. Many of the remaining practices are experiencing difficulties in recruiting and retaining dentists, and the situation has been exacerbated by a lack of funding, with net Government spending on general dental practice being reduced by a third over the past decade. That said, the overall situation locally has improved since I first raised concerns in an Adjournment debate on 25 May last year, and I will outline the improvements later. They are welcome, but I am concerned that they might be a short-term sticking plaster and might not provide a long-term solution.

As we emerge from covid, the situation both locally and nationally has reached crisis point. Locally, that is due to covid, as well as retirements in two NHS dental practices in Lowestoft and the closure of the mydentist practice in Leiston, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). That practice closed due to the difficulty of recruiting dentists to work in the NHS in the area—a theme that is repeated across the country.

Access to NHS dentistry is a problem that has been brewing for a long time. The situation can be likened to a house built on shallow and poor foundations. The earthquake of covid has led to that house falling down. There are now parts of the country—particularly in, though not confined to, rural and coastal areas—that are dental deserts.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. On that point, my constituents in the city of Birmingham have hugely suffered through the covid. People like myself, who suffer from diabetes, have had huge issues with dental treatment. I hope that we can move forward and return to treating people in the best way possible.

[Peter Aldous]

While there are particular problems in rural, coastal and more peripheral locations, which it is difficult to get dentists to move to, it is clear from looking around the Chamber today that the problem is not confined to such areas and is an issue in metropolitan areas as well. Sir Robert Francis, chair of Healthwatch England, has commented:

“Every part of the country is facing a dental care crisis, with NHS dentistry at risk of vanishing into the void.”

I believe there are five issues that need to be tackled to address the problem. First, a secure, long-term funding stream must be provided. Secondly, we need to step up the recruitment and retention of dental professionals. Thirdly, it is vital that work on the new NHS dental contract, which has been being developed for more than a decade, is completed as soon as practically possible. Fourthly, it is important to highlight the role that water fluoridation can play. Finally, there is a need for greater accountability and for dentistry to have a voice in the emerging integrated care boards and partnerships.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Another point that needs developing is that in Helmsley, in my constituency, the commissioners have still not recommissioned services after 20 months. The commissioning of dental services by the NHS is simply too slow and too bureaucratic. It is a real deterrent for new dentists to take these contracts.

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and he is right. There has been a recent procurement process in East Anglia, but it has been only half successful. There are places that have not been able to get dentists to fill those voids.

Figures published in March 2020, before the pandemic, show that 25% of patients new to practices in England could not get an appointment. The situation has got worse: the most recent figures, from 2021, show that that number has increased to 44%; in my area, it is 56%. Dentistry was locked down from March to June 2020 and the ongoing restrictions on dentists—fallow time between appointments—are still limiting the ability to see more patients.

The latest figures on workforce, published in August 2021, show that 951 fewer dentists performed NHS dental activity than 12 months earlier, with 174 of those losses in the east of England. Those figures confirm that parts of England are becoming dental deserts; beyond Suffolk and Norfolk, that includes the east Yorkshire coastline, Cornwall, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight.

The lack of access to NHS dentistry has a fivefold impact on patients. First, millions are missing appointments. Secondly, there has been a significant increase in DIY tooth extraction. Thirdly, the poor are hit hardest. Fourthly, mouth cancers are going undiagnosed. Finally, children are suffering. This very serious situation has been confirmed by the “Great British Oral Health Report” carried out by mydentist.

I apologise for going on at length, Mr Efford, but it is important to emphasis the crisis we are facing. I will now briefly outline some of the solutions. The first issue that must be tackled is getting more dentists and dental practitioners working in the NHS. The Association of Dental Groups has put forward its “six to fix” proposals for solving the workforce crisis, which I will summarise. First, we need to increase the number of training places in the UK. That is a long-term measure. Secondly, in the short term, the Government should continue to recognise EU-trained dentists. Thirdly, there needs to be a recognition of other overseas qualifications. We have an opportunity to make more of our links with Commonwealth countries such as India, which has a surplus of highly skilled English-speaking trained dentists.

Fourthly, the process for overseas dentists to complete the performers list validation by experience—or PLVE—so that they can practise in the NHS must be simplified and sped up. Fifthly, whole teams in dental practices should be allowed to initiate treatments. The largest barrier to better use of the skills mix under the current NHS contractual arrangements is that allied dental professionals are unable to open a course of treatment, which means they cannot raise a claim for payment for work delivered.

Finally, the Government must create a new strategy for NHS workforce retention. The current contract through which NHS dentistry is provided was introduced in 2006 and for some time it has been widely recognised as not being fit for purpose. It is a major driver of dentists leaving NHS dentistry. Reforming the NHS contract is needed to deliver better access and preventive care so as to improve the nation’s oral health. Flexible commissioning, aimed at increasing access to vulnerable groups such as those in care homes should be an important part of the reform. The current dental contract is target-based, and it was accepted before the pandemic that it needed to be reformed. We must complete that reform as soon as possible. I would welcome an update from the Minister as to progress on that and when we might see a new contract.

It is important that NHS dentistry receives a sustainable long-term financial settlement and not a short-term fix. Additional funding is vital if long-term and sustainable improvements to NHS dentistry are to be secured. The pledge of £50 million on 25 January for a dentistry treatment blitz is welcome, and £5.73 million is available to the east of England. However, that is a time-limited one-off injection of funding that is available only until the end of March, and there is a concern that it will barely make a dent in the unprecedented backlogs that NHS dentistry now faces. The British Dental Association estimates that it would take £880 million per annum to restore dental budgets to 2010 levels.

Since my Adjournment debate on NHS dentistry in Waveney last May, there have been improvements to the local service, which it is important to acknowledge. A temporary contract was awarded to a Lowestoft-based NHS dentist to see additional patients, which has definitely helped prevent the situation from getting any worse. Tomorrow I shall be with Community Dental Services, which along with Leading Lives, a Suffolk-based not-for-profit social enterprise, is launching its toolkit to help improve the oral health of people with learning difficulties. It is also good news that from 1 July a contract has been awarded to Apps Smiles for the delivery of NHS dentistry in Lowestoft, but it is concerning that it was not possible to do that in nearby Leiston and across the border in Norfolk, in Fakenham and Thetford. It will be interesting to receive further details as to why that happened, but one can speculate dentists might not have been interested in those opportunities and might have been put off by the existing, unattractive contract.

I have concerns about the procurement process that go back a long time. I am concerned that it does not encourage traditional partnerships to put forward proposals. I urge the Minister to carry out a whole review of the procurement process.

A vital strand of NHS dentistry should be the prevention of oral health challenges—prevention rather treatment. Fluoridation of water supplies can play a vital role in that, so it is welcome that the Health and Care Bill allows for it. There is also a need for greater accountability.

[Mr Mahmood]

I apologise for intervening on the hon. Gentleman twice, but I just want to make the point that John Charlton, with Severn Trent Water, has worked on getting fluoridation in water for the past 30 years. We should pay tribute to him for the great work that he has done.

[Peter Aldous]

I am very grateful that the hon. Gentleman intervened on me, because Birmingham is the model of how to do this. As a Birmingham MP, it is right that he highlights that, and I thank him for it.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

As I will set out in my speech, my father was an NHS dentist for 23 years. He trained a long time ago in Manchester, and he told me that the advent of sugary foods and drinks had had an enormously detrimental effect on children’s teeth over the years. The one thing we can do to solve that problem is fluoridation of our waterstream. It has made such a difference, and I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) for raising that point.

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for re-emphasising that.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

Birmingham is an interesting case. Not all of Birmingham is fluoridated, so when a child arrives, dentists can tell which part of Birmingham they have come from. No cavities, no fillings—fluoridated. Fillings and cavities—non-fluoridated.

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my hon. Friend for re-emphasising that case.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way so many times.

There is another point that ought to be mentioned here. As far as I am aware—I hope my hon. Friend can confirm this—no detrimental effects from fluoridation have yet been found anywhere, and we ought to scotch any rumours to the effect that they have.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, I should just point out that a number of Members who have their names down to speak are intervening. To respect others who want to speak, could you please refrain.

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful because, with those four interventions, we have re-emphasised the importance of fluoridation.

There is a need for greater accountability, and the Health and Care Bill can provide the framework within which that can be secured. It is welcome that the commissioning of dentistry is set to move to integrated care systems. That can make for a more transparent system, but there is a risk that dentistry and its impact on overall health could be overlooked in the integrated care proposals. It is important that dentists are properly represented on integrated care system boards.

At Report stage of the Health and Care Bill, I tabled new clause 18, which called on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on access to NHS dentistry, to collect data on the length of waiting times for primary dental care treatment and, if necessary, to take action. The Minister for Health declined to accept the new clause. I do not know whether a similar clause will be introduced in the other place. If it is, I would urge the Government to give it serious consideration. Such a reporting mechanism can drive sustainable and meaningful improvement in access to NHS dentistry.

Mr Efford, you will be delighted to learn that I am coming to a conclusion. Tackling access for NHS dentistry, which has been neglected for 15 years, is an opportunity that we must grasp in order to demonstrate the levelling up of healthcare right across the UK. We must put in place an NHS dentistry system that is fit for the 21st century, instead of reversing into the 19th century.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member. It looks like we have six minutes each for Back-Bench speeches. If anyone can deliver their speech in less time, it would be very helpful.

13:47

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), with whom I co-sponsored today’s debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting valuable time for this valuable debate.

I have spoken many times in this place about my serious concerns about the state of NHS dentistry in England. Covid has had a devastating impact on our NHS dental services. According to the British Dental Association, it has caused more than 40 million NHS dental appointments to be lost since the start of the pandemic, which amounts to a whole year’s worth of dentistry in pre-covid times—a year’s worth of dentist appointments lost to the people and the system. Even before covid began, enough dentistry was commissioned for only half the adult population in England to see an NHS dentist just once every two years. With capacity now even more severely limited by covid, access problems have reached an unprecedented scale in every community, with existing inequalities in access and outcomes widening even further.

I received a briefing from Bupa, which tells me that across its 306 practices with an NHS contract in England it has a growing number of loss-making sites. It points out that these NHS practices would not be sustainable if they were independent—they are kept afloat by Bupa’s private practices. To be clear, that is private healthcare subsidising the NHS. The current dental contracts make dentists’ work highly stressful and do not allow them to provide the quality of care that they want to provide for their patients. According to the BDA’s surveys, that is the No. 1 reason why dentists are leaving the NHS or reducing the amount of work they do in it.

Only last week, I spoke to the owner of a dental practice in my constituency—he is my dentist—who told me that he has just learned that one of his dentists is leaving NHS practice to move to private dentistry. He also told me that the recent £50 million funding announcement for urgent dental care is virtually unusable, as it requires either persuading an already overstretched workforce to work overtime or recruiting new staff or hiring expensive locums—all of which has to be delivered by March 2022. It is just unworkable.

Bupa said the same about the funding package. To qualify for the funds, dentists must first have met their NHS contract thresholds, a system that excludes practices that have dealt with large numbers of patients with urgent needs, or faced higher staff and patient sickness, or who have struggled to recruit staff who are prepared to do NHS work. Only 134 of Bupa’s 306 practices were eligible under the criteria. Of those 134, only two so far have felt able to take up the extra funding.

It is clear that this funding package is not new funding—it is drawn from the £169 million that was clawed back from contract holders in 2020-21 for not meeting contractual targets. In my view, clawback is a failure of the system. It is not a failure of the NHS to spend money allocated through budgets but a failure to properly target resources to where they are needed, such as in my constituency in Bradford South and in the district of Bradford. The Government should not expect applause for creating a pot of funding for urgent care that simply cannot be spent in the time allocated, or in the areas where it is needed most, because of the strings that have been attached.

The BDA estimates that it would take £880 million per year just to restore NHS dental budgets back to 2010 levels. Chronic underfunding and the current contract are to blame for the long-standing problems with burnout, recruitment and retention in NHS dental services, with almost a thousand dentists leaving the NHS in England in the last financial year.

I know that the Minister is committed to reform, but I stress the urgency of this work. The Minister said earlier this week that the Government had

“started work on dental contract reform.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2022; Vol. 708, c. 780.]

The process has been under way since 2011. It is simply no longer good enough to say, “We’re working on it.”

I urge the Minister to commit today to a firm date when dentists will see the end of units of dental activity and a better contract, focused on prevention and increasing access. That needs to be rolled out now, as the targets set in the current contract are leading to the wrong outcomes. Unless what the Government are seeking is the ultimate demise of NHS dentistry, we really need to see a change in the contract. NHS dentistry was in trouble before covid-19 and is now facing an emergency.

In Bradford, almost 1,000 children under the age of 10 had to be admitted to hospital to have decayed teeth removed under a general anaesthetic in 2019-20. Thousands of children in Bradford and across the country are waiting in pain, taking painkillers and potentially multiple rounds of avoidable antibiotics to control their infection while they await surgery. No figures for the size and length of waiting lists for hospital tooth extractions in children or vulnerable adults are currently collected, but I am told that people are routinely waiting as long as two to three years—that is two to three years in acute pain. I hope that the Minister will touch on this issue in her response and explain why data on this crucial service for some of the most vulnerable people in our society is not routinely monitored and collected.

The lack of access to NHS dentistry is impacting some regions more than others. Yorkshire and the Humber is currently the worst performing area in terms of child oral health, with more than one in seven children in the region suffering from decay by the time they are just three years old. That is more than double the rate in the east of England, where only one in 15 children are affected by that age. According to a recent survey by mydentist, nearly 10% more people were able to access routine dentistry in the south of England than in the north.

Since the current Government took office, their unspoken policy has been to rely increasingly on rapidly rising patient fees while they drastically cut Government funding for dental services. Net funding to NHS dentistry fell by around one third in real terms in the last decade. An acceptable level of access can be secured only by prolonged and serious commitment, and proper, long-term funding to and for NHS dentistry. We need, in essence, a new deal that treats dentistry as an equal member of the NHS family, not a Cinderella service. I ask the Government to commit to a properly funded all-age NHS service.

However, I believe that we can and must go further. We must work to achieve a fully-funded dentistry service, with NHS dentistry available to all. As the chair of Healthwatch England, Sir Robert Francis, QC, said:

“We won’t build back a fairer service until access to NHS dentistry is equal and inclusive for everyone.”

I agree with Healthwatch, and believe that the guiding principle in NHS dentistry must be that good oral health must not be restricted by either postcode or wealth.

00:00

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I agree with Sir Robert Francis and with the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins). I also agree with, and am grateful to, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous).

Mr Efford, I would just clear my throat by saying that I am only Father of the House because of 1992, so I pay tribute to you for your part in my still being here. I would also say that, after Stephen Lawrence was attacked, I did the right thing in going to see the Commissioner of Police, but I also did not do the right thing; I should have gone with you to ask the Home Secretary for an inquiry into the attack. I pay you public tribute for that, and I shall forever be grateful that you did what I had not done.

I hope that the Minister has met the Toothless campaigners, Mark Jones and Steve Marsling, who have given some of us leaflets spelling out some of the things that are required.

With the participation of patients, we ought to be able to get this right. It needs dealing with, first as an emergency, then in the medium and long term. Fluoridation should not be delayed, but the beneficial impact will come later. Getting more dentists through training and getting more well-qualified dentists from overseas will help in the medium term, but the emergency goes beyond the end of March this year.

I will send to the Minister the letter that I received on 10 February from NHS England and NHS Improvement about the situation. It is a well-meaning letter, but it does not deal with the problem, as she will know, because, on the south coast, we face the same problems as in East Anglia and in Yorkshire—and throughout the country, for that matter.

We know the impact that covid had in reducing the number of sessions that were possible, with the space required between treatments, but as the hon. Member for Bradford South said, it is not just about covid; the problems were there before. I take the view that the general practitioners contract in 2006 was wrong; the dentistry contract was wrong. Those watching this debate may hear about UDAs—units of dental activity. Why is it that one filling attracts three UDAs, and yet five fillings, a root canal and an extraction get the same?

I am grateful to those dentists who have written to me, many of whom are doctors. One says:

“I spend around 40-50% of my time on NHS work (clinical and non-clinical) but it only accounts for around 10% of my income.”

My mother used to explain to me that young dentists would take on a lot of NHS work and work really hard and intensively, then, as they grew through middle age and towards their last 10 or 15 years, they would go more private and have more time, and others would come up and take over their work. There would be a sort of succeeding life cycle of dental activity.

I am not against private dental treatments and attention, but I do not believe that it should be required. People ought to have the option of NHS treatment. My wife and I always used that for our family, until we were a bit older, and others should be able to do the same. We need a system in which anybody who asks for an NHS examination can get one, without significant delay.

One dentist talks about an awful lot of time spent on data capture for the NHS Business Services Authority—at least it is one; it was combined from five other bodies. It is important that the amount of admin that dentists complete be reduced as far as possible.

Those practices that still provide NHS dentistry try to continue with their contract but say that they are unable to take on new patients due to UDA limits. They get many calls a day from people saying that they cannot get care because their practice no longer accepts NHS patients. That has to change, and it has to change fast.

Another of my dentists has sent me some pretty clear figures. They say that they cannot find the 1.5 to 2 full-time-equivalent dentists that they need to recruit. They also bring up the issue of training and the flawed contract, and note that contract reform has been promised by every Government since the current contract was introduced in 2006.

We cannot delay any longer. Even if it were just an interim contract, that would provide an incentive, money, encouragement, recognition and a change to patients’ circumstances. As has been said, many more things need to be done.

I have found the British Dental Association to be very co-operative and positive, acting in the interests of patients and of its members as clinicians and as businesses.

Let us try to get people together and take an urgent approach. And when we meet in six months’ time, let us be able to say that significant improvements have been made and that more are coming. Then, perhaps in three or four years’ time, we will not have to have these discussions.

14:01

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing the debate.

We urgently need to find a long-term, sustainable solution to the crisis that NHS dentistry faces. Covid has been tough on it, but the trouble did not start in March 2020. Parveen Kapoor, a dentist working in my constituency, is at his wits’ end. His surgery is inundated with patients, many of whom have not been able to see a dentist for years. In his words:

“Covid made a bad situation even worse.”

Parveen is so proud of the work that he and his colleagues do. He cares so deeply about his patients. However, as he says,

“we are a caring profession, but the crisis is making offering our patients the care we need difficult, and it won’t take much more to make it impossible.”

A long-term solution starts with making NHS dentistry a place where people want to work. We also need to see a reshaping of NHS dentistry that ensures that patients can access surgeries and that prevention is effectively prioritised.

Over the past decade, both staff and patients have suffered the consequences of chronic underfunding. NHS dentistry has suffered unprecedented cuts not seen elsewhere in the NHS, with net Government spending on general dental practice in England cut by about a third in the past decade. This crisis is a result of Government choices.

Contracts are failing while staff suffer burnout, and dental practices struggle to navigate recruitment and staff retention. The British Dental Association’s general dental practice committee chairman has described NHS dentistry as “hanging by a thread”. Close to 1,000 dentists left the NHS in England alone in the last financial year. Morale is at an all-time low, as dentists turn to private practice, opt for early retirement and seek career changes.

As a result, communities across the UK face alarming access problems. Pre-pandemic, Healthwatch England concluded that 85% of dental practices were closed to new adult patients. The situation was exacerbated by the pandemic; a full year’s worth of appointments were lost between April 2020 and December 2021. Dentists still see only a fraction of the number of patients they usually see due to social distancing measures and underfunded efforts to improve ventilation. This has lasting consequences for our communities.

Good oral health is essential to general health and wellbeing. Oral health inequality is widening, while patients turn to dangerous DIY dentistry. Despite ongoing restrictions related to the pandemic, NHS dentistry in England continues to suffer the consequences of harsh funding cuts. Surgeries in England have been set extreme targets, or have to pay back funding; they are overstretched and struggling. Dentistry should be treated not simply as an afterthought but as a central pillar in upcoming reforms of the healthcare system. We need sustainable, long-term action focused on prevention before it is too late.

A sector that is key for health has borne the brunt of austerity cuts. One-off investments, such as the Government’s £50 million so-called dentistry treatment blitz last month, are not enough. The treatment blitz barely made a dent in unprecedented backlogs and runs the risk of further overwhelming pressurised practices and staff. This Government, in office for 11 years, have created this crisis in dentistry. I hope the Minister will take steps to resolve it.

14:06

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), although I did not agree with the premise of his argument. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this important debate. He and other hon. Members have mentioned a number of problems. I do not mean to reiterate any, but I will add one issue for consideration by the Minister: infrastructure first, and the pressure of additional housing development. House building in my constituency is at five times the national average. That is not only disruptive to our natural environment but means that people cannot access their GP, a school place or a dentist. Maybe she can address that.

I wanted to speak for a number of reasons. One thing I put on the record—many colleagues will have had this—is that a number of dentists contacted me through lockdown desperately wanting to serve and provide services. They found it exceptionally difficult to be able to do that. They literally knew that there was a growing problem, and they wanted to serve. I thank dentists in my constituency, as I am sure do all Members, for their efforts during the period of covid. In addition to infrastructure first, I would like to hear from the Minister specifically how we are going to address the difference between registration for a service and actually accessing a service. It seems that there is a problem in the contracting around that at the moment.

Where I perhaps disagree with the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall, who just left his place, is that I think we have to control taxpayer support for dentistry. Public finances are stretched and have been for considerable time—in my time as a Member of Parliament, both currently and during my time as the Member for Bedford. We have tried to deal with some aspects of excessive public expenditure. We have record debt. We have record levels of taxation. It is a fantasy for Members of Parliament to come here or to the Chamber time after time and say how wonderful it would be to spend more money on whatever is the topic of the day. In that way lies financial ruin. The Labour party has no answer to that. We need to find creative solutions to use existing levels of expenditure more wisely than currently.

On the way dentistry contracts work, as the British Dental Association and others have shown, there is plenty of scope for spending existing resources more efficiently and more effectively, by looking at a better form of contract than drill and fill or by looking at preventive dentistry, rather than reacting once problems have occurred. I was amazed to see—I do not know whether other colleagues have seen this; I am not sure I read it right—that one of the main reasons for young people ending up in A&E right now is tooth decay. How on earth did we get into that situation? There must be a better way for us to spend resources if that is the result those resources are having.

May I also make a point about recruiting people into dentistry? I supported Brexit and I support the Home Secretary’s points-based immigration system. What on earth are we doing to ensure that we have an adequate supply of people from across the world? My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney talked about people coming from the Commonwealth. I do not mind where they come from. I want the best and brightest to come to this country. How can we eliminate some of the restrictive practices to ensure that we make that an interesting and attractive option?

Finally, I will make a point about the contract. One issue in our health services is that most contracting is done, in essence, through what I would call production contracts between a producer and the state for how taxpayers’ money should be allocated. However, there are other ways to do that, such as by putting the power of the money with the consumer. We started to do that in elder care through personal budgets, and I know that the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), has a lot of experience in care, so she might address that issue, too.

Can we find a new way to contract with our dentists that empowers consumers with the financial resources that are to be spent, so that they can choose where to use the money? They could have competitive pricing from dentists, rather than every particular production item in dentistry having a particular price, with all the frailties mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the Father of the House, with one filling versus the whole thing ending up at the same production price. If we empower people through the budget, that might be a better way to approach any change to our contracts, rather than just rehashing another producer contract for dentistry.

14:11

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on securing this important debate. Lots of important points have been made about the situation nationally and about the contract, and some solutions have been offered.

I will use the short time available to pay tribute to Healthwatch Richmond, which back in the 2020 was the very first Healthwatch in the whole network to express concerns about dentistry. It was the first to produce a report on it, which prompted Healthwatch England and various local Healthwatches to do so. I pay tribute to Healthwatch Richmond’s lobbying of Healthwatch England and NHS England for bringing us to the point where we have the information to hand and can put pressure on NHS England and on Ministers. I thank Mike Derry for his work.

I also want to give a voice to my constituents. Yes, the London Borough of Richmond is a relatively affluent borough. That does not mean that there is not need and that everyone can afford to go to a private dentist. Our borough has the lowest funding for NHS dentistry in London, apart from the City of London, and the Healthwatch Richmond survey found that less than half of those seeking NHS care could get a routine appointment. One in three could not even access urgent or emergency care; private patients were 16 times more likely to be able to access treatment. Clearly, the problem is not with the supply of dentists, because those who needed to get treatment, if they are able and willing to pay, could access care in the space of a week. Hundreds of others, however, could not access such care.

I want to bring two or three examples to light. Only last month, a resident of Hampton wrote to me. She is a full-time carer for her daughter and they both have special needs. She was tearing her hair out, because she had phoned scores of NHS dental practices but no one would take her daughter. She said:

“I have to use my disability money and my heating money and food money to pay £700.00 to help my daughter. I even wanted my dental practice to give my daughter my place at the practice as she is in so much pain.”

They have various special needs and are concerned, as so many are, about the cost of living crisis—she has heating bills and food bills, but here she is having to pay for care.

Another recently retired individual, whose income dropped significantly in retirement, said that they ended up paying

“£1000 for x-rays and the 30 second removal of the implant! The second dentist I went to in Twickenham quoted me £6k for removal of a wobbly tooth and replacement”.

That is simply not affordable, and it is unfair to say that affluent boroughs such as Richmond do not need additional NHS provision. There are countless more stories. As we have heard, prevention is important. Another resident who wrote to me eventually ended up getting referred to hospital for emergency treatment months after they should have been treated.

I have sympathy for the argument made by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) that, clearly, there is not a bottomless pit of taxpayer cash allowing everybody as much NHS treatment as they need all the time. We know it is a false economy to restrict NHS access because people are, as he pointed out, ending up in A&E and with far worse problems down the line, which costs the NHS a lot of money.

I agree with what the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), said about everybody being entitled to NHS care. I know the Minister will talk about the recent £50 million injection of cash into NHS dentistry, but that will offer just 350,000 appointments. Nine million children missed dental appointments in the year following the first lockdown. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a minimum standard of service, with a personal dental plan that helps people to understand how frequently they need a check-up, gives them good advice on looking after their teeth and, critically, includes access to an NHS dentist. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say to my constituents and millions of others around the country who cannot access the care that they need.

14:16

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for his leadership on the issue. I pay tribute to my everyone at my local dentist for the work that they do—the technicians, the hygienist and the staff in both the private and NHS practices. I particularly pay tribute to them for everything they tried to do during the pandemic, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller).

Let us be under no illusion about the importance of dental health. It is not some cosmetic thing. The science shows that the health of our teeth and gums is integral to our overall health. Gum disease is linked to strokes, diabetes and heart disease, so the health of our teeth really matters. The Government spend more than £3 billion a year on NHS dentistry, including around £500 million in my own region of the south-east. Why does it feel, from all the conversations we have had, that that part of our health system is a distant cousin in comparison with the rest of our community health services?

Certainly in my own part of North Hampshire, that came into stark relief during the pandemic, showing the systemic fault line in the dental system and how it is semi-detached from the rest of our local NHS services. Despite being one of the sectors of the NHS that is most experienced with infection control, it was effectively shut completely for almost three months, and for many more months measures were put in place to significantly reduce the number of patients that could be seen. There was almost no way of accessing support, despite the fact that many professionals were very willing to put it in place, including dentists from my own area who contacted me at the time.

There are three systemic issues that the Minister needs to touch on. We need to be clearer about the role of the NHS in providing dentistry. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) touched on the importance of private and NHS provision, but let us not fudge it. We need a mixed economy in the sector if we are going to go forward. Although I agree with the Father of the House that there should always be an NHS option, we need a system that embraces both private and NHS services and enables them to work together.

The second issue is around NHS contracts, which we have heard a lot about in the debate. There are no incentives in the current contracts for prevention or continuity of care set out by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. There is no real requirement to develop a relationship with patients, which would be beneficial for the long term. Surely that has to change. Can the Minister update us on that?

When it comes to scrutiny and accountability, dentistry is simply not the same as the rest of the NHS. I asked my local regional commissioner in the south-east for some data about 10 days ago when the debate was announced. I still do not have any local data on waiting times for appointments. Why? Because it is not collected. That is appalling. We are spending £500 million in my region, but we are not collecting any data on waiting times. Commissioning the service at a distant, regional level not only failed us in the pandemic, but fails us on an ongoing basis. Will my hon. Friend the Minister, who is really diligent in her work, touch on that in her speech?

We have to see a way forward. The people who access NHS dentistry rate it really highly. We welcome the additional funds that the Government have put in place to provide catch-up, but even though my constituency has two of the three Hampshire dentists who provide those extra services, I am still seeing a spike in problems in accessing the extra dental appointments. I do not think we are out of the woods yet with the hangover from the pandemic.

We need more accountability. We need dentistry to be part of our local health system, we need regional commissioning to be a thing of the past and we need a contract that really works. The 2020 NAO report on the subject is really important, demonstrating that in some areas there are significant under-deliveries of contracted dental services, making it even harder for patients to get NHS services that the NHS is actually willing to pay for. Indeed, the NAO report estimated that almost 1,000 practices fell into that category, delivering up to 40% fewer dental units than they should be in some areas. Let us have a contract that means that people get what they need, that prevention is in place, and that there is continuity of care. Others have touched on the need for more dentists. We have significantly fewer dentists per head than Germany and France. I welcome the work that the Government are doing on that but we need more.

The short-term problems created by the pandemic have shown much more significant and fundamental problems in our dental services. Let us use this opportunity to capitalise on that understanding of where the problems lie and get change that will deliver, for the long term, better dental service for everybody in the private and NHS sectors.

14:22

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. Access to NHS dentistry has been raised with me throughout the pandemic, and judging by turnout for the debate, it is something that a lot of Members are keen to get their teeth into—[Interruption.] I promise to make no more dental puns.

I have met dentists and made representations to Ministers numerous times. The overwhelming feeling that I have had from such discussions is of a disjuncture between the two. Dentists and patients do not feel listened to, and Ministers are not offering the solutions needed to ensure that NHS dentistry is accessible for much of the population. While that is not being addressed, waiting times build, preventive dental action is not taken and health inequalities rise.

I pay tribute to all dentists and dental staff in my constituency, who have worked in a high-risk environment throughout the pandemic. I know that they are doing all they can to deliver those services. The correspondence I have had with them shows how passionate they are about ensuring good access to NHS dentistry.

As the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), explained, a lot of the issues relate to the UDA system, which does not encourage dentists to take on new patients, especially those who require a lot of treatment. That scenario is increasingly common in the light of the difficulties that we have had over the past two years. The UDA system accommodates only 50% of the population. To my mind, that means that we start from a position of knowing that many people will be denied access to dental care. We need a functioning NHS dental system, and that will be possible only through contract reform recognising the realities of the difficulties that the sector faces, and if services are commissioned for a much higher proportion of the population.

I am told that the local commissioning figure sits at around 55% of the population, but of course that was pre-pandemic, so the number of people who have been able to access services is actually lower. Unless more of the population is covered, constituents will continue to struggle to access dentistry. One patient advised my local Healthwatch that they had contacted 45 practices in one day, and was told by all of them that there was no capacity as

“they only have a small NHS contract and are therefore not taking on patients at present”

but would be happy to take that person on as a private patient. The system actually encourages greater privatisation.

One constituent, who contacted me because of the pain she was experiencing from a hole in her tooth, described her attempts to register at a practice as a fight, which sums the situation up perfectly. We would not accept people having to ring around A&E departments to see if there was any space for NHS patients, so I do not see why we should accept it for dentists.

Since January 2021, there have been several increases in the UDA targets placed on dental practices. Between January and March 2022, it is expected that 85% of the UDA should be met. Last year, a practice in my constituency had to refund £45,000 because of activity that simply could not be delivered. I understand there is nervousness across the sector about the levels that will need to be refunded given that practices are expected to meet the 20% UDA increase at a time when we still have omicron-related staff sickness and appointment cancellations.

I recently asked whether any assessment had been made of the impact of short-notice cancellations on the ability of dental practices to meet their UDA target. The answer I received simply stated that that was considered within the 85% target and suggested that dental practices keep a short-notice cancellation list. However, the practices I am in contact with already do that and are proactive in trying to fill the slots. It seems, once again, that there is a disjuncture between what the Department says and what is happening on the ground.

Given that infection rates and community spread of covid-19 have been at their highest level in recent months, setting the target at 85% at this time seems questionable. There is little surprise that we are hearing of more dental practices leaving the NHS and operating on a purely private basis when there seems little financial incentive or, indeed, financial feasibility in continuing to deliver NHS services. We face the very real prospect of growing privatisation of dental services and people being priced out of receiving dental care. I have heard of price increases as high as 100% on previous NHS fees for those going private. Together with the cost of living, that is simply pricing people out.

Healthwatch Cheshire West confirmed that deregistration from dental practices is the primary cause of people needing to contact other NHS dentists and being unable to find one locally. The reality is that waiting lists locally sit in their thousands. One practice quoted a total waiting list of more than 3,000 people, demonstrating the significant challenge to be addressed.

In the last six months of 2021, I was contacted by 25 different constituents who faced that challenge. Many were writing on behalf of their whole families as well as themselves. One constituent, whose son was in pain after cracking his tooth, was told to keep ringing back each month to see if there was any capacity to reregister, another resorted to carrying out a temporary filling repair themselves at home and one lady, who had been shielding, was removed from the register due to inactivity. Many were shocked to find out how few rights or guarantees they have to remain registered at a practice. Healthwatch has suggested that clear information is needed so that patients are fully aware of the risk following inactivity or missed appointments. I agree that there needs to be greater information. However, there also need to be greater guarantees of access for individuals.

I will conclude by sharing the words of Cherie, a dentist who operates in my constituency.

“The only way to save NHS dentistry in England is to listen to dentists. It’s currently financially unviable for dentists in high need areas with large UDA contracts...this is only going to widen the oral health inequalities further.”

I urge the Minister to do just that: listen to dentists and act accordingly.

14:28

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this important debate.

I am all too aware of the issues surrounding the availability of dentists in North Devon. I could not find an NHS dentist when I moved there in 2017. I continued to travel back to my previous dentist in Wiltshire for 18 months until I was lucky enough to find one. On election in 2019, my first surgery was with a dental nurse detailing the discrepancies between her terms and conditions and those of other nurses in our healthcare system, as well as the issues surrounding the contracts making NHS dentistry unattractive to a growing number of dentists.

The lack of availability of dentists in North Devon significantly precedes the pandemic. The south-west is particularly poorly served when it comes to dentists. At 0.5%, the south-west average for hospital dental extractions for nought to 19-year-olds exceeds the England average of 0.4%. The figure for North Devon of 0.8% is double the England average, which is unacceptable.

In Devon, just 36% of children and only 43% of adults have seen a dentist in the last year, compared with 60% of children and 51% of adults before the pandemic.

William Shakespeare wrote in “Much Ado About Nothing”:

“For there was never yet philosopher

That could endure the toothache patiently”.

It is not just philosophers who cannot endure toothache patiently—neither can we. My constituents write in their droves to me about their problems accessing dental services.

Only this morning, I was contacted by a retired couple who have recently moved to my constituency. They cannot afford private dental treatment. Despite being mydentist patients in their former home, they have been advised that there is a five-year wait for a place with the same company in North Devon.

Another constituent wrote:

“I moved to Devon in Sept 2018 transferring into the area where my skills were required. I am an average wage earner and in this time have been on a waiting list for an NHS Dentist. I now have a dental problem. I used an emergency service yesterday and paid the £23 fee to sit in the chair for a little over a minute and told I need to find a dentist and have a crown fitted ASAP. The dentist kindly disposed of the chunk of tooth that broke away. I can’t even register with a private dentist let alone an NHS one. I have been warned private treatment will cost around £600.”

Another constituent has been a patient at Barnstaple dental practice for seven years and has paid for private treatment ever since moving there. They told me that they never thought they would be in situation whereby their children were not able to receive NHS treatment. In August 2021, they received three letters advising them that there would be no further NHS treatment for children at the practice.

A school holiday trip to the dentist was part of my childhood. I find it deeply concerning that children in my North Devon constituency are unable to do the same. All too many children have never seen a dentist. Given the statistics I have shared regarding young people in North Devon needing hospital extractions, we are storing up even greater dental issues for the future.

Surely it is possible for dentists to attend schools and check our youngsters’ teeth. There has to be a way to facilitate that. I hope that the Minister is looking into innovative solutions, including whether the 100 community diagnostic centres promised by her Department will also house a dentist facility, as the oral health backlog seems to predate the pandemic.

During lockdown, I met Dr Vinay Raniga from mydentist, who had some suggestions for what more could be done to secure more dentists in the short term. Additional training places for UK dentists are to be welcomed, but the time lag is far too long. We know that the contract needs addressing, but the fundamental issue in my constituency is a lack of actual dentists.

One suggestion is to simplify the processes that enable internationally trained dentists to come to work in the UK. We should take advantage of Brexit and harness the power of the Commonwealth, in particular the over-supply of dentists in India who are available to come to work in the UK. I very much hope that steps are being taken to work with our Indian friends to rebalance this dental supply inequality.

The Minister and I have already exchanged correspondence on this matter, and I know that steps are under way, but I fear that the magnitude of the problem in remote coastal constituencies such as mine needs bigger and bolder interventions. The £50 million is warmly welcome. After speaking with the Minister yesterday, I checked with my clinical commissioning group whether steps were under way to ensure that my local dentists are able to access that funding. NHS England has written to all dental providers in the region and has gathered 51 expressions of interest, of which only 31 meet the criteria set. I am not sure what is wrong with the other 20, but that raises further concerns.

In the south-west, we have retained our urgent dental hubs and have an urgent dental care initiative, providing an extra 1,100 appointments a week. That is of course welcome, but those appointments are for the whole of the south-west of England, and the contents of my inbox tell me that it will go nowhere near covering the demand in North Devon.

Last summer, the chief medical officer Professor Chris Whitty highlighted the health disparities in coastal communities compared with their inland neighbours. It is not just positive dental health outcomes that are hard to come by in my North Devon constituency. I know that the Minister is aware of the issues, but we urgently need our children to be able to access dental check-ups. As the social activist, Geoffrey Canada observed:

“Good dental care doesn’t make you a good student, but if your tooth hurts, it’s hard to be a good student.”

The depth of dental decay cannot wait. We need more dentists available to see us now.

14:34

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Efford, for allowing me to speak in this debate to highlight how the dental crisis is impacting on my city of York.

Healthwatch York has been at the forefront of campaigning on dental services, and I pay tribute to York dentists and the wider dental community, who have been generous in sharing the challenges that they face on a daily basis. I have also been inundated with correspondence from constituents, asking me for help. I hasten to add that they do not want me to get out my Black & Decker. They want me to stand in the gap between my city and the Minister in order to find the solutions. It is getting harder, because dentists are disappearing, waiting lists are growing and oral health is deteriorating rapidly.

Healthwatch York carried out a study in 2018. It found that it taken over two years for 45% of York residents to find a dentist, so none of this is new. Back then, 84% of respondents had an NHS dentist; last year, that figure fell to just 59%. Of those who did not have an NHS dentist, 71% could not find an alternative. The number of people who have not seen a dentist in the last two to three years has risen sixfold. According to the national data, the number of children who have seen a dentist has fallen by 44%. In York, it can take five years before people can see a dentist, and no practices are seeing new patients. Out of 39 practices, only one is accepting NHS patients on to a waiting list, but it already has 2,000 people on it.

In the midst of this crisis, many are receiving letters to say that their NHS dentist is going private, and they are therefore left without. One constituent said that they had spent their burial savings on tooth treatment, and another extracted his own tooth. This is a time of real crisis.

Some of my constituents have found a dentist 40 miles or more away, and some say it is cheaper to travel abroad. Many have no dentist at all. The cost of living crisis is bearing down on York because of housing costs, meaning that people simply cannot afford to go private. And nor do they want to. The principle of the NHS is so important to them, so they seek solace at A&E or with their GP in order to address the pain that they are experiencing, at a time when, as we all know, oral health inequality is growing sharply.

A third of people now see a dentist privately, but 71% of them say that it is not by their choice. Accessing NHS healthcare is really important for them. People just cannot afford it any more. There is also a two-year waiting list for an appointment at the only orthodontic practice for children in York.

We need to address the real challenges. First, we need a workforce plan. Things are getting much worse. Last month a BDA survey showed that over 40% of dentists plan to change career or seek early retirement in the next year, so this is urgent. We need dentists, hygienists, technicians, nurses and receptionists. A practice in my constituency has already lost three receptionists because of the abuse they get from very frustrated members of the public. And, of course, they are only on the minimum wage. We need to fill those vacancies. One practice in York has only one and a half full-time-equivalent dentists, rather than the required six, to see 10,000 patients. This is detached from reality.

We also need to make sure that the failed dental contract goes. Since covid, things have got much worse. The need will not be addressed simply by setting compliance at 85% or, as might happen in the coming days, at 100%. Putting more pressure on dentists will make them more stressed and more sick, while also heaping more stress on their colleagues as they take up the slack. Things will just spiral downwards. That approach will not work. It provides the wrong incentives and no solutions.

In York, we have been working through opportunities and plans, because at this point it is really important to look to the future. First, we need to create a national dental service; the system is so broken that we need to build it from scratch. The service must be free at the point of need and should never be dependent on people’s ability to pay.

Secondly, the school service must be reinstated. The Government are struggling to institute the supervised toothbrushing programme that they promised in the general election. Let us get that in place, because prevention is better than cure. And while we are at it, let us make sure that older people also access those services, because poor dental health leads to malnutrition and is actually one of the leading causes of premature death in older people.

We also need to look at the new structures emerging in our health system. I appreciate that this is still going through Parliament, but the integrated care system footprint should have responsibility for those services and we need to take advantage of the opportunities. The York Health and Care Alliance will cover the footprint of our city and integrate mental health, physical health and social care—and I would add dental care to that list. Supporting the alliance will enable us to deliver an integrated healthcare service. That is, of course, important, because our mouths are not divorced from the rest of our bodies. In York we are looking at how to pull all the services together, as we have done with diagnostic and treatment hubs and vaccines. There is a community of expertise that knows about integration, and we need to make sure that it pulls things together for dental services, too.

Finally, our city has called for a new dental school. Our city’s medical school is a unique model. We believe that we should not just look around the world but grow our own talent in order to provide dental services. That is why York—along with Hull, given the shape of our medical school—should have a dental school.

Our dental service has decayed. Oral health is regressing, and now we need a national dental service.

14:39

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this important debate. Our constituents in Norfolk and Waveney face similar challenges in getting access to NHS dentists.

This is a long-running problem, which my predecessor also pursued following the closure of a dentist in Snettisham. I raised this issue in my maiden speech and I have focused on it ever since due to the inadequate provision in west Norfolk. Of course, the restrictions put in place during covid have further reduced access, as others have said. The British Dental Association estimates that 40 million appointments were lost overall, but the situation before covid was poor.

The National Audit Office found that my constituency had the lowest number of dentists per head in the country. Moreover, Norfolk had the lowest level of dental activity delivered in the country, with only 65% of contracted NHS activity delivered compared with the national median figure of 96%. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) also made that point. And, at 17.5%, Norfolk had the highest percentage of people who were unsuccessful in trying to get an NHS dental appointment.

Since being elected I have met the NHS East of England team regularly to press for better access to dentists, particularly following the closure of the mydentist practice in King’s Lynn. I am pleased that those discussions led to a procurement process, which, although delayed by covid, took place from summer last year, and that that procurement has been successful, with the NHS having just announced two new contracts for Smile Care Norfolk to increase access to dentists in King’s Lynn. I want to put on the record my thanks to the NHS East of England team for its efforts in successfully completing the procurement, which will mean that from 1 July my constituents will have better access.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, it is disappointing that Fakenham and Thetford have not been successful in the procurement process. If my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) catches your eye, Mr Efford, I am sure that he will speak about that.

Members have also touched on the supply of dentists. Office for Students figures show that there were 895 dental students in 2020, rising to 983 in 2020, compared with 810 in 2019. The 2022 intake, however, is just 809. Given the challenges in dentistry provision, we should be increasing that number, not reducing it. We should consider measures that enable those who are undertaking training to spend time in those areas where coverage is weakest. We should also be more direct and require those who have qualified to spend time in those areas as well.

I note that none of the 11 dental schools in England is in East Anglia. Given the low levels of dental coverage, I join the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) in putting in a bid for one in East Anglia, Norfolk, King’s Lynn, to help address that gap.

Another issue that has been raised is that the contract dates from 2006. My hon Friend the Minister candidly referred to it last month as a “disastrous contract” with perverse incentives—or disincentives—for NHS dentists to take on NHS work. I am sure she will be able to update us on when new measures will be introduced to provide a greater focus on prevention and care for individual patients.

In conclusion, the new services coming to King’s Lynn are warmly welcome and will improve access. However, further reforms are needed, including to training and the contract, to ensure that people have the access to dentistry that they need and deserve.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

You have all been very disciplined in keeping speeches brief, so I am grateful for that. We are well on time. I call Wera Hobhouse.

14:44

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this debate. He is almost an hon. Friend: we work on many cross-party issues together, so even though we are on different sides, I call him my friend.

It is important to say that this is not a debate to criticise dentists. It is about criticising a system that does not work. I want to pay tribute to all the dentists in my constituency, who have worked very hard, particularly during the pandemic, to keep the oral health of my constituency in as good shape as possible, but they have really struggled.

Oral health is an essential component of everybody’s health and wellbeing. Dentists play a crucial role in the early detection of a number of diseases, as we have heard, including mouth cancer. Problems accessing NHS dental services are on an unprecedented scale in every community. Morale among NHS dentists is at an all-time low, and 40 million NHS dental appointments have been lost since the start of the pandemic. All this has been made worse by the pandemic, but the dental crisis in our country far predates covid. It is a result of chronic underfunding and an unsustainable target-based dental contract.

My constituents have been contacting me about access to NHS dental services since I became elected. The biggest concern is that they simply cannot find an NHS dentist. One constituent told me:

“My disabled partner and I have been told that our dental practice will no longer do NHS dentistry for us after 35 years. We are on income support and cannot afford the private fees that are quoted to us.”

Another constituent told me that they could not find a dentist in Bath that could take their child. The closest practice they could find was a 40-minute car journey away. When another constituent needed fillings, she was given two temporary ones and told that anything more would incur private fees. She told me she was afraid to eat. This is the extent of my constituents’ misery.

According to a Healthwatch survey carried out in November, no NHS dentists in Bath and North East Somerset reported that they were taking on NHS patients. No practices reported that they were able to take on children under 18, and no practice reported that it would be able to take on new patients in the next three months. What is happening in Bath is happening across the country.

The single biggest problem with dentistry in the UK is that it has become privatised over decades. I do not want to accuse any particular party of this. It has been going on for a long time, and that privatisation has started to take over. There are around 12,500 dental practices in the UK, of which 30% are private, 15% are mostly private, and 15% are evenly mixed. That means that just 40% are NHS practices, but many of these have elements of private provision.

Fewer than 40% of adults in Bath and North East Somerset have seen an NHS dentist in the two years leading up to June 2021. Those who cannot afford private dental care often do not go until it is too late, and they end up needing emergency care. It is not that there are not any dentists in the UK. I know that there is a problem with the distribution of dentistry, but the biggest problem is that, increasingly, dentists do not want to work for the NHS.

The current crisis will not improve unless we make it viable for dentists to provide NHS treatments and make NHS dentistry a place where people want to work. Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire CCG has lost 9% of its NHS dentists in the last year alone—the highest proportion in the south-west and over twice as high as the national average. Dentists in my constituency have told me that they want to provide NHS treatment but just cannot make it viable under the current conditions. They are hugely worried about the increase in the percentage of the pre-pandemic treatment levels that they are now expected to meet, and the mental health toll on our dentists is enormous.

The Minister has committed to reforming the system. This is welcome, but the pace of change is too slow and practices cannot increase the number of patients they are seeing on promises alone. Not only must the Government reform the current contract; it must do so urgently. The bottom line is funding. The Government must provide adequate resources as a matter of urgency to reverse the alarming decline of NHS dentistry and guarantee its long-term sustainability.

The current situation is nothing short of a scandal and simply unacceptable. Healthy teeth should not be a privilege only for those who can afford to pay for private dental care. More than 70 years ago, the founding fathers of the welfare state envisaged a country where the gross injustices between rich and poor would be eliminated for good. Let us not turn our backs on the principles on which our NHS is based. Oral health is as much a matter of access and equality as the rest of NHS care. To the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), we Liberal Democrats absolutely understand the importance of being prudent with the public purse, but equality should never be sacrificed on the altar of balancing the books.

14:50

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford—[Interruption.] I will try to stand up without knocking the furniture over. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for bringing this important debate. It is impressive that so many have attended. I have been listening to your entreaties from the Chair, Mr Efford. Many points have been made about the expansion of housing, covid, fluoridation and the UDA system, so I will not repeat all that, you will be delighted to hear; I will cut my speech very short.

Of the most common issues in my mailbag that constituents write to me about, at the very top is dental care, and NHS dental care in particular. That this issue is widespread is evidenced by all the Members here. I will bring out a few points that I mentioned in the Adjournment debate the other day, because they are so shocking. Some 85% of dental practices are now closed to new NHS patients. Nearly half of patients are forced to get private treatment because of access problems, as reflected in my mailbag. This horrifies me: one child is admitted to hospital every 10 minutes for tooth extractions. Imagine the cost of that, let alone the trauma involved. That is why we have to be proactive, rather than reactive, and why I was pleased to hear fluoridation mentioned.

Some 1,000 clinicians have left the profession in the last year, with yet more significantly reducing their NHS hours, as we heard. That is utterly unacceptable. I welcome the levelling-up agenda, but I do not believe we are being levelled up in an entirely fair manner. Areas such as Clacton are often considered to be rich and well-heeled because we fall into the wider eastern region—Essex is lovely and leafy and is an economic powerhouse—but the coastal areas have pockets of deprivation. I am not proud of it, but my constituency has the most deprived ward anywhere in Britain. Something has to be done about that. If we really want to level up public services, we must consider areas such as Clacton when it comes to dental care. We need to make sure that levelling up follows the data, if we can get it, and not just the rhetoric, and gives coastal communities the help they need.

To my mind, there are two key areas we really need to hit. In an age of integrated care systems and devolving more and more power over primary and acute care to local leaders, I increasingly question the role of certain state monoliths such as NHS England and NHS Improvement. My constituents do not need more national mandarins, they need local, empowered leaders with proper devolved budgets. I reflect on the outstanding leadership of my former CCG and its accountable officer, Ed Garratt; I mentioned him the other day, but I have to again, because he is so good. He has provided a great service to us locally. Thanks to his and his team’s work, Clacton primary care is in a much better state. I want to give local systems the commissioning powers and budget so that we will level up in a local, focused and measurable manner. The PCTs had their day and local care leadership is now delivering. It is time for NHS England to be devolved in the same manner.

Let us move on to the workforce. Increasing the number of UK-trained dentists will help but will take at least six years to make the difference. Urgent action is now needed to increase places on the overseas registration exam, develop an adaptation programme and recognise qualifications from top dental schools around the world.

Our membership of the EU forced us to look away from people in areas such as our wider Commonwealth who are being trained in first-class dental care, and the Asian subcontinent. We could see more of those practitioners in areas such as Clacton, which would be the very Brexit dividend we were led to expect.

I am delighted that Clacton has been selected as a pilot area for new dental training courses, but clarity is needed on how existing budgets can be used to support and improve dental access in constituencies such as Clacton.

To conclude, Mr Efford—I am doing this very quickly—

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not want the people of Clacton to miss out on this debate. You have all been so disciplined that we can be a little bit flexible with the six-minute limit. Please do not cut your speech too short so that we miss out on any points.

[Giles Watling]

Mr Efford, with all due respect, I have deliberately gone to the shorter version of my speech. If the Minister wishes to visit the wonderful constituency of Clacton, with its 35 miles of glorious coastline, I would love to discuss dental services with her.

Levelling up is not just about expanding employment outside London. It must be about addressing inequalities wherever we find them, such as decreasing NHS dental care in coastal communities such as Clacton. We can do that by forcing cash and power out of NHS England, alongside using our Brexit freedom to open the nation to the dentists of the world we have so long spurned.

Finally, I put in a plea—a plea for sympathy. In a couple of weeks, I am having root canal treatment. Our dentists are excellent, but I hope it goes well—[Laughter.]

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I know I am going to regret saying that we can be quite relaxed about the six-minute limit, but we can. If you run over by a little bit, it should not cause too many problems for people speaking later in the debate, but do not abuse that generosity. I call Tan Dhesi.

14:56

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Efford. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for securing this important debate and the Backbench Business Committee for ensuring valuable parliamentary time is dedicated to the issue.

I place on record my gratitude to dentists, nurses, technicians, hygienists and all those who have worked in dental practices across our country, and in particular in my Slough constituency, over the pandemic, continuing to serve people throughout such uncertainty and disruption as best they could.

As hon. Members know, although clinics were not shut for long, the ongoing repercussions nearly two years later have been astronomical. An estimated 38 million appointments were missed during the pandemic. Despite best efforts, such as opening more than 600 urgent dental hubs and staff working overtime on weekends and evenings, achieving a pre-pandemic level of service has certainly not happened for my Slough constituents, with nearly two thirds of practices estimating that they are continuing to operate at less than 70% of pre-covid capacity.

[Rushanara Ali in the Chair]

Returning to so-called normal was never going to be straightforward, but the chronic lack of support for dentists now and prior to the pandemic is taking its toll. As hon. Members have eloquently highlighted, shockingly, Government spending on NHS dentistry has decreased by more than a third in the past decade. As with other health services, we cannot allow Government to use covid as a smokescreen for what was already a decimated profession.

In the five years before the start of the pandemic, the number of practices providing NHS dentistry fell by 1,253. In December 2021, a survey showed the true toll that has taken on dentists, with more than 40% planning a change of career or retirement over the next year. Tory cuts have consequences, and the pandemic has drastically revealed them.

Since the reopening of practices, I have been contacted by dentists concerned about meeting their targets without adequate support, and patients waiting months, sometimes years, to be seen. The long-term lack of support has created a double-edged sword, failing both patients and practitioners, so I welcome the Government’s recently announced funding, which I hope will achieve their aims of securing 350,000 extra dental appointments, particularly for more vulnerable groups. We are the only country in the UK that failed to provide such support until now, so I fear that it is too little too late. As with all catch-up plans, we need to listen to those who are impacted.

Following the announcement, the British Dental Association noted:

“After a decade of cuts, a cash-starved service risks being offered money that can’t be spent. Hard-pressed practices are working against the clock and many will struggle to find capacity ahead of April for this investment to make a difference.”

I have seen that happening for constituents who contact me: the waiting list for appointments in Slough is more than a year long, orthodontist referrals go back to 2018, and patients are asked to go private if they wish to receive any treatment promptly, paying hundreds of pounds just to be pain-free. That situation is sadly going to get worse, as more than half of dentists state that they are likely to reduce their NHS commitments because they are overworked and undervalued. Is this privatisation by stealth?

The managed decline of Britain’s public services, overseen and supervised by this Conservative Government, has to stop. We all know who will lose out if it continues: the most vulnerable in our society, particularly young people. If we do not properly address this now, we lay the path for a litany of future health issues for children and young people. In my Slough constituency, which is officially the youth capital of Britain as it has the lowest average age of any town or city in our country, this will be devastating. In 2019, 41.5% of five-year-olds in Slough suffered from tooth decay, compared with the national average of 23%, and often required general anaesthetic to remove the impacted teeth, leading to other health risks and impacting their education through missed school days.

Even prior to the covid pandemic, tooth decay was the No. 1 reason for hospital admissions among young people, with a waiting list of a year being standard for the procedure. We already know the disproportionate impact that the pandemic has had on certain groups, including older people; people living in deprived areas; black, Asian and minority ethnic groups; and the most vulnerable groups in our society.

Sadly, that impact has extended into dentistry. NHS England and the Office of the Chief Dental Officer have highlighted that

“Evidence suggests that existing health inequalities have been compounded by COVID-19…The long-term economic impact of the pandemic is likely to further exacerbate oral health inequalities.”

If dentistry moves towards a privatised model, or patients simply cannot be seen due to NHS demand, that widens and entrenches inequalities in our society and, in the long term, it doubles pressure on the NHS for avoidable treatments. Our NHS dentistry should function on the founding principle on which it was created: being accessible for all, regardless of one’s ability to pay.

15:03

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Like other colleagues, I pay tribute to my local dentists and the whole team of dental staff who support them. They do amazing work, and almost all of them went above and beyond during the pandemic.

I have to express a bit of concern about the information that the Minister’s officials may be feeding her. I got a letter on 16 December from NHS East of England direct commissioning, which said: “Having conducted a search of dental practices in the Leighton Buzzard area, I can confirm that of the 47 dental practices, six are accepting new NHS patients.” The letter goes on to say that there are 30 others that have not been heard from. I received an email only this morning from a couple in Leighton Buzzard who said that they have given up trying to find an NHS dentist. A lady in Dunstable wrote yesterday to say that the local waiting list is two years. Another constituent wrote to say that they had been turned away by emergency dentists to which NHS 111 had referred them.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Would it be too difficult for the NHS to have a list, for every constituency, of every dental practice and its situation? That way, the NHS, patients and MPs would know what the situation is, and we could change that situation.

[Andrew Selous]

The Father of the House is absolutely right; the point was also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) earlier. I do not think that the data are nearly good enough, and I do not see how Ministers can have proper oversight if we do not actually know what is happening.

When the letter of 16 December says, “having conducted a search of dental practices in the Leighton Buzzard area,” I fear that the person who wrote it sat at their desk and went on Google to find out. I do not think they actually came to the town. I do not think that they walked around and spoke to the dentists, the local Healthwatch, or the people in the town. How can the Minister have accurate information if what we get from the officials—that was from an official letter from the NHS to me—does not actually reflect what is happening in the town?

We are struggling now, but my area, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), is scheduled to have another 14,000 houses; they have been consented and are being built now. I have a major campaign on ensuring that general practice capacity keeps up with major new housing developments. How can we do that for dentists too if we already have a deficit? Will the money follow those huge new housing developments in many of our constituencies? We need answers on that too. If the Minister is able to give further information on that, either when she replies, or perhaps by letter afterwards, that would be really helpful.

We have heard from many colleagues about the issue of children’s teeth. I am informed that tooth decay is the No. 1 reason for hospital admissions of young children. That shows the importance of prevention and getting it right, and the whole issue of sugary drinks. I recognise the help that fluoridisation gives, but children’s oral health is a huge issue.

One or two colleagues—including, I think, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—mentioned older people’s dental care; I had a debate on that in the Chamber. It is a subject that we often do not talk enough about, particularly with people in care homes. Do the managers of those homes ensure that staff help the patients to brush their teeth? What about the oral care of people receiving domiciliary care? Is that budgeted in? It is serious; it can lead to malnutrition and all sorts of problems. There was a major Care Quality Commission report, which was only on the care home sector, in June 2019, called “Smiling matters”. It would be good to have an update from the Minister on how we are doing in ensuring that older people’s dental care is also taken proper care of.

We know that the current contract, about which most of us have been complaining, was introduced in 2006—so quite some time ago—but back in June 2009, there was an excellent independent review about what we needed to do about it by Professor Jimmy Steele. I will quote from one paragraph of it:

“Through the NHS, dentistry could take a huge step forward but in order to do that, one concept is critical. So long as we see value for taxpayers’ money as measured by the production of fillings, dentures, extractions or crowns, rather than improvements in oral health, it will be difficult to escape the cycle of intervention and repair that is the legacy of a different age.”

I think that the Steele report got it right. However, that was under the previous Administration, in June 2009. I am told that the work on reform started in 2011, and yet here we are, in 2022. I think that what we are all saying to the Minister—who is diligent and I know cares about these matters—is that we really need some urgency.

On the number of dentists, perhaps slightly surprisingly, and perhaps contrary to some of what we have heard today, I had an email yesterday from the British Dental Association saying,

“We don’t really have a shortage of dentists in England—the number of dentists registered with the General Dental Council is in fact almost 2,000 higher now than it was in 2018. The key problem is that these dentists increasingly don’t want to work in the NHS—almost 1,000 quit the NHS in the last year alone.”

The email goes on to say that if dentists move to private provision, they do not actually earn any more. They are not just leaving NHS work because of the money but because they cannot look after their patients properly under the contract. It says that it is soul destroying, chasing these NHS units of dental activity. It is stressful and demoralising, so what do they do for the same money—not for more money? They go—this is what the British Dental Association says—to private practice, where they can spend more time with their patients, providing the level of care that their patients deserve.

We are not doing it right. To try to guard taxpayers’ money through efficiency, we are driving dentists out of the service. We are measuring the wrong things. I do not think that we are measuring enough, as we do not seem to have enough measurement, and where we are measuring, we are measuring the wrong things. It is not possible to get improvement unless we have the correct data. I have confidence in the Secretary of State and in the Minister, but I think we are all saying that this is urgent and please get on with it with proper reforms.

15:10

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on securing this well-attended and important debate.

I want to relay some of the desperate accounts that have come from my constituents. One moved to St Alban’s with his fiancée in November 2020—15 months ago. They needed dental care and tried eight NHS dental practices in the area, but not one could add them even to the waiting list. They have checked with the practices every single month for the past 15 months and still no joy. My constituent’s fiancée has now registered with some student dentists at a hospital in London. She is desperate to get some treatment. The good news is that she is on the waiting list; the bad news is that it is still a very long waiting list.

Another constituent, a mother, has a very young daughter. The mother has spent two and a half years trying to get her daughter an appointment with a dentist. She wrote that she was surprised that NHS practices do not even have an obligation to take in children, especially when they have a dental issue. She herself has gum disease, which got worse during her pregnancy. She has had to spend all her savings and money to go private.

Another person who has been trying for ages to get a dentist appointment rang the NHS phone number, which tells people to call it if they cannot get an appointment. All the people there did was to search the websites for her, which she had already done. Their only advice was that she should wait until she was in agony and then call NHS 111. What kind of advice is that? It is unfair and counterproductive, and it costs the taxpayer more.

The local dentistry committee in Hertfordshire wrote to me. It had written to NHS England, along with the dental committees of Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes. They were begging for the payment system to be reformed. It is absurd that, if dentists carry out more work for their community than the outdated cap allows, they simply cannot be paid. That is an absolutely absurd system. Dentists are unable to provide the care that their patients need. The units of dental activity skew the dental system. It is now more attractive for practices to deal with less complex patients: in many cases, they are paid the same flat rate for such treatments as they would for helping those with higher needs.

The Local Dental Committees confederation has sent its plans to the Government and to many MPs, saying that the system has to be reformed. I sincerely hope the Minister will give us a better answer than the one I was given to my written parliamentary question earlier today, which simply confirmed that the system was being reviewed along with lots of other options. We need to hear more positive noises from the Minister this afternoon.

What needs to change? The Association of Dental Groups has made some recommendations on workforce. Some Members have alluded to those recommendations—the “six to fix”. The association talked, first, about the need for more training places here in the UK, which I am sure we all support. Secondly, it called for—some Members have not referenced this—the recognition of EU national dentists to be extended beyond the end of this year, when it will otherwise run out. Thirdly, the association has called for the UK to look at recruiting from countries that have a surplus of high-skilled dentists. Unfortunately, it appears to be news to some Members in the Chamber that we were always able to recruit from some of those countries, and it did not require Brexit to be able to do so.

I would like to put three questions to the Minister. First, when will my constituents be able to see a dentist? Secondly, when will this absurd payment system be scrapped and reformed? Thirdly, when will there be a workforce strategy so that dental deserts, which we have heard so much about, become a thing of the past and this Dickensian system of years-long waiting is finally brought to an end?

15:15

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

I echo other hon. Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for bringing this debate forward. My hon. Friend is a good friend and has been a real champion in bringing these debates to this Chamber and other places on many occasions, and I thank him for all the work he has done.

As I said in my intervention, I might have a bit of a vested interest in this topic given that my father was an NHS dentist for 34 years. As a retired dentist, he is probably sitting at home with a cup of tea watching this debate, so I shall try to say some nice things about him. He worked in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), who is my neighbour in north Norfolk. The facts from when he retired 10 years ago are still prevalent today. In fact, it is arguable that the problems he encountered back then are now even worse. That is a sad state of affairs.

It is fair to say that we have a crisis in dentistry—-we certainly do in my constituency. Not a week goes by when I do not receive casework from people who are in pain or who simply cannot get an appointment with an NHS dentist and cannot afford to go private.

There are acute problems in certain parts of the country. We have heard from hon. Members from all over the country today, but the south-west and East Anglia are well known to have some of the worst problems. The fact is, we simply cannot get dentists to come and work in some of these rural locations.

The Minister wants to have answers, not always problem, and I would echo my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), who said that a dental training college in our part of the country would be very worth while. Alongside the Norwich Medical School, such a college would create jobs and opportunities and filter those into our part of the country. There is nowhere in the east of England to train dentists at the moment. We are crying out for some kind of provision to help us. Why can we not make it a requirement for newly qualified NHS dentists to have to do a year of training in an area of high need before they pass with flying colours?

I also echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). He is absolutely right: it is not simply that we cannot get dentists into the country or that we are not training enough. Many will call for dentists to be trained or imported from other countries to ease the crisis, but the truth is that we do not simply have a shortage. Of course, we can make it easier for dentists coming across from India to have their qualifications recognised so that they can perform their work straightaway. We do need to streamline that process. However, that is not at the heart of the issue.

The simple facts are that the General Dental Council found that almost 2,000 more dentists are registered now than in 2018. The problem is that those dentists—just like my father, who retired 10 years ago—have simply had enough and do not want to work in the NHS any more. We have to establish why that is and address that as a key problem.

Of course, we could talk about many different areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney listed five, and I will not go over those again. I will focus on one issue that we have heard a lot about today. I am not going to apologise for calling it the dreadful UDA contract. It was bad a decade ago and it is still bad today.

Almost 1,000 dentists quit the NHS in the last year alone, and the motivation to do so, as has been said, is not purely financial. Those dentists, like my father, are doctors; they care about patients’ health. They want to spend time with their patients and treat them properly. The bureaucracy of getting points for giving out prizes is not the right way to deal with people. Dentists are not being treated with care. They do not want to be chasing these dental activity targets—that is highly stressful and demoralising. The delays in the contract reforms are leading to their motivation plummeting and going through the floor. That is why they are turning away. The lack of urgency in helping them is the real root cause of the problem.

Let me put that into some kind of context. In the Norfolk and Waveney CCG area, which also covers the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, we lost 40 NHS dentists between 2018-19 and 2020-21—a 9% drop in just two years. If we carry on at that rate, we will be in an absolutely shocking predicament. We therefore need to make a decision, and I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) said earlier. However, NHS dentistry is not free—that is a myth. We need to make a decision: either we will continue with this decline, effectively privatising dentistry and sending it down the opticians route, or we need to urgently get on and reform the dentistry provisions in the contracts we keep talking about. There is a simple reason why: we cannot do this to our children, our elderly, our vulnerable and people on low incomes. They are the ones who need access to good dentistry, and it is not acceptable in the 21st century, and in a modern country, that they cannot get help and support from this service.

Less than 25% of children in Norfolk saw an NHS dentist in the year to June 2021, and that is significantly lower than the national average of 33%. Imagine if it was your child who had excruciating pain and could not get to see a dentist. That goes back to what I said earlier: this is a particular problem in East Anglia.

I know that the Minister is keen on reforming the system and that negotiations are under way, but I urge her to grab this issue with huge vigour. The number of Members sitting here this afternoon—on a Thursday, and when we are waiting to get away for the recess—shows just how important this is for so many of our constituents up and down the country.

15:22

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for raising this issue and for their tenacity. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ali.

As many hon. Members have said, dentistry is not just about teeth; it is a vital component of our health. The hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) shared a Shakespearian quote, and there is another one worth mentioning. In Shakespeare’s “As You Like It”, Jaques says:

“Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.”

If the Government carry on the way they are, it will be “sans dentists” as well. They need to get a grip of the situation.

The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) talked about the cash and the expenditure. I am happy to have a debate with him on this issue, and if he wants to secure a Westminster Hall debate on public expenditure, I will join him. I will give him an example of what he was talking about: the £10 billion-worth of covid-related fraud. That is equivalent to £153 for every person in his constituency—the best part of £50 million, which would be better spent on dental services in his constituency.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

I am more than happy to come back to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

Last week, I took part in a debate on the energy crisis. This week, I took part in debates on the crisis in children’s mental health services, the food insecurity crisis and the cost of living crisis. Today, it is about the access to dental services crisis. There is a bit of a theme beginning to develop here—it is about crisis, and all these crises are not isolated.

It is not as though the Government are having a run of bad luck through no fault of their own and have an otherwise impeccable record; there is something systemic and even endemic going on. I get a bit tired of the Government’s default approach to any deficit in policy application, and we have heard it a bit here: it is the CCGs, the NHS, the officials—it is everybody else’s fault bar the Government’s. They have to take responsibility.

[Mrs Miller]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

In a moment. I am happy to give way, but we were told earlier that we did not have much time.

I do not want to detract from the substance of the debate, but it would be remiss of me not to talk about the crisis in health and social care more generally. Specific recognition from the Government of a crisis in access to dental services would give me a bit more confidence that they have a handle on it. More importantly, it would give me confidence that they are actually going to do something substantive about it. I wait with bated breath.

[Mrs Miller]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

In a moment.

Any denial by the Minister that there is a problem is itself a part of the problem. I really do not want to hear any denials.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman is not making a particularly collegiate speech, but never mind. I have a lot of time for him. I do not know where the £10 billion fraud figure he throws out has come from. If it is about PPE, he should look at the facts behind that: £4.6 billion of that was write-down of current value versus value at the time of the pandemic. If we are going to debate in this place, it should at least represent the facts.

[Peter Dowd]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman raises that. The bottom line is this: look at the Public Accounts Committee documents. There are more to come out. If the hon. Gentleman wants to have a debate on fraud, I am more than happy to have one. Perhaps he can put in the application and I will come and speak to him about it.

[Mrs Miller]

What would the hon. Gentleman have done differently in 2006 when the current dental contract was put in place? Of course, at that point, he would have been able to influence the Labour Government.

[Peter Dowd]

I will come back to that in a minute. I am an optimist—hope springs eternal, as Alexander Pope said—and I hope the Minister will accept that there is a crisis. Perhaps then we can all move on, in a very collegiate way, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) says, towards finding a solution, which he knows I am more than happy to do.

[Wera Hobhouse]

For the purpose of giving everybody a voice, would it not be most collegiate if we actually acknowledged that the dental contract was introduced under a Labour Government? It is important to address that, but it is also important to address the fact that the bottom line is public funding for a good service.

[Peter Dowd]

Frankly, the coalition, including the Liberal Democrat party, which the hon. Lady serves, could have sorted that problem out in the last 10 years, but they dithered, ducked and dived. Let us not go there. She is on dodgy ground in relation to that, I have to say.

Facts are stubborn, and here are a few. The Government have cut dental budgets by a third in real terms over the last decade. They are making a meal out of their recent time-limited £50 million injection into the service, or the so-called dental treatment blitz—a blitz that will barely blow the top off a toothpaste tube. I suspect that that £50 million—a veneer if ever there was one—is unlikely to be fully spent.

The bottom line is that we are in a crisis. The British Dental Association estimates that it will take £880 million a year to put things back to where they were in 2010—that is a fact, and it does not account for the huge impact of the pandemic. We also need to address the chronic underfunding and to have a clear commitment to ending the system based on units of dental activity that has been going on since 2011—it has been discussed today so I will not go into it any more. It has been over a decade, and the Government really need to get a grip of that.

In my constituency, 5% of dentists in South Sefton CCG stopped providing NHS services in the last two years. That vastly underestimates the loss of local provision, as most dentists tend to reduce the size of their NHS contract gradually before they quit the NHS completely. Across the country, 40 million NHS dental appointments have been lost since the pandemic. That is a whole year of dental provision. Without better support from the Government and, crucially, an end to the chronic underfunding, and without a clear commitment to and progress on contract reform, there is no way dentistry will be able to recover.

The covid alibi is beginning to wear a bit thin. This is all about pre-covid. Covid has exacerbated the situation, but pre-covid is also significant. Enormous backlogs began pre-covid. Let us get a grip of that. I ask hon. Members across the way to press the Minister and ask the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister—their colleagues—to listen to the facts, because, unless Members opposite can get that message across to an indurate Government, things can only get worse. No more excuses, no more prevarication, no more procrastination, no more pretext or self-exoneration—as I have heard today. The Government need to pull their finger out. We need action now. There is no excuse for letting the opportunity go by.

In closing, perhaps I can re-jig what Ian Fleming said to make a point about the Government’s lack of action in this crisis. He said:

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.”

Which one does the Minister think it is? I cannot speak for the dental profession, but I think I know which one it is, and it is not one of the first two.

15:31

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I, too, want to give my congratulations to the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). One of the great advantages to speaking late on in a debate is that we can jettison all the interesting facts and figures we have carefully researched in preparation for a speech like this, because they have all been mentioned several times already. I want to focus instead on providing the Minister with some local feedback from my constituency of Broadland, so that she, when deliberating on how best to improve the dental contract and provision for all our constituents, can hear from the horse’s mouth the nuances that are experienced in Broadland and Norfolk and Waveney more widely.

Of all healthcare issues, dentistry is the most prominent in my inbox week after week. It is not just about the ability to register to get initial access, it is about getting dental work completed. I have a huge list of constituents’ casework, which I am not going to bring to Members’ attention, save for one, which gives a flavour of the seriousness of the missing treatment. A constituent of mine had two fillings fall out, which is a fairly common experience. She was unable to get any dental treatment to deal with that, so she ended up having to ring 111. She was told that, because of the lack of dental provision in the county of Norfolk, she was encouraged to do a DIY filling—that was by 111.

Every day is a school day in this job. I now understand that using the wax from Babybel cheeses is the way to perform a DIY filling recovery. Should we be in that sort of position? I, for one, think we should not. There are all sorts of examples I could have shared with Members. I want to drive home the real impact. For whatever reason, we are in the position we are now; some of it is covid, but a lot of it is not. We must, as a Government, address it in support of all of our constituents, however they voted.

I also have feedback from dentists. I have the honour of representing a fantastic town called Fakenham, which has been referred to already. One of the two NHS dentists announced a few months ago that she was no longer accepting NHS patients and that she was going private. I rang her up to find out what was the reason behind it. She is a very decent woman, who has worked tirelessly for the community of Fakenham for many years. What she said to me was not primarily about money. It was actually about the way she was treated by her NHS managers, which caused her frustration that reached such a pitch that she thought, “Stuff it. I am not putting up with this any longer.”

One thing that the dentist referred to that particularly stuck in my mind was that even a year ago, she had a person she could talk to directly as part of her management team; when there was a problem, she could ring up and talk to someone. That call was replaced by an email. She said that she had emailed every week for the previous 12 weeks about a really serious issue and she had not even had a reply. If we treat professional providers in that offhand way, can we be surprised that they decide to move to private provision? That is an option that every single NHS dentist has, and they have been voting with their feet.

I have already mentioned that this is not primarily about money—at least not in this instance—but I welcome the £50 million of additional spending that the Department has announced, and the 350,000 further treatments that that is apparently going to provide. I also very much welcome the decision by the Department to award a new contract for dentistry for Fakenham, because it is the largest town in my constituency and we were down to a single NHS provider. However, as has already been mentioned, I think by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), we have not been able to entice any dentist to take up that contract, even though the money is available.

Why is that? Why is it that a fantastic town such as Fakenham, which is a brilliant place to live, 5 miles from the gorgeous north Norfolk coast, with a really lovely quality of life and relatively low housing costs—it is a great place; it has its own racecourse—

[Duncan Baker]

And a good golf course.

[Jerome Mayhew]

It also has a good golf course—I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour. It is genuinely a really gorgeous town, so why is it that it cannot attract anyone to take on the NHS dentistry contract that is available? As my hon. Friends have pointed out, one of the reasons is that we have no training facility—not just in Norfolk or Suffolk, or even in Cambridgeshire or Bedfordshire; the nearest is in London. People have to go up to Birmingham or to London.

When we are trying to persuade young dentists to set out on their professional life in a certain place, moving to a rural or small town is not automatically attractive to them. We have to encourage people via training, and we know from our experience with the medical provision at the University of East Anglia and the Norfolk medical training in Norwich that someone is much more likely to stick around afterwards in the place where they train, because they have established relationships, they have contacts in the community—and, frankly, they know what great places Fakenham and other parts of Broadland are. One of the primary reasons I wanted to speak today was to encourage the Minister to consider the provision of a dental training facility in the east of England.

I will leave it to others who are much more professional than I am to comment on how we properly reform the 2006 NHS contract, save for saying that we need to treat dentists with respect. It is not all about money; it is about how we treat people. And please can we have some training in Norfolk?

15:38

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing the debate. I enjoyed the spirited contribution by the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd)—particularly the characteristic political attacks. That highlights part of the problem that we are dealing with here. If we are unable to recognise the failures by a number of different Governments across a number of decades, we will never get solutions. Equally, if we continue constantly treating the NHS or anything about it as a political football, we will paralyse this country and things will not get done.

I know that the Labour party likes to blame everything on the Government, but today’s debate has been really useful for hearing all the different elements of what is going wrong for NHS dentistry, including the part that the NHS itself can play in handling HR, looking after staff and retention. I think that is important.

This is a critical, crucial health issue for my constituents in Stroud, as it is for other Members’ constituents. We have a number of different points of casework related to this issue, and we get emails about it all the time. Anybody who has had toothache knows that it is debilitating: we cannot get on with our day, we start off grumpy, and we end up not speaking—my husband likes that bit. Anybody who has seen a child with decaying teeth starts to worry about what is going on at home, and about the health and future of that child. They are right to do so, because once those teeth are decaying, it is very difficult to repair them.

I thank all of Stroud’s dentists: like other Members, I had so many dentists contact me during covid to offer help. They were some of the first people to be frustrated by the restrictions placed on them, but also the first to offer help. In Gloucestershire, the CCG has seen a drop of 17 NHS dentists between 2019-20 and 2020-21. That is a drop of 5% in one year, so it is a very worrying development, as colleagues have said. We believe that it is also likely to under-represent the real fall in capacity, because most dentists tend to reduce their NHS contracts before leaving the service, and only 33% of adults in Gloucestershire saw an NHS dentist in the two years to June 2021.

To provide some colour and some real-life experience, one of my constituents moved to Stroud in January 2020. She fell pregnant and was entitled to free dental care, but by the time she had obtained her MAT B1 certificate, she was unable to find a dentist. She could not find a dentist throughout her pregnancy, when she would have had that free dental care, and still has not found one. She spoke to 15 dentists in the local area—Stroud, Wotton, Stonehouse and Gloucester—all of whom told her that they were not accepting new NHS patients. One interesting and worrying point that she raised with me is that all of the dentists’ surgeries she spoke to that were accepting children as NHS patients—her little one is about one year old now—were doing so only if their parents joined them on a private basis. She and her husband have found themselves having to join on a private basis and pay the fees to make sure that her little one has NHS cover. So many parents would not have that option, but I do not think it should be my constituent’s only option for getting support for her child.

There are three key areas I would like the Minister to cover, and I have no doubt that she will do so. Norfolk desperately wants a training centre, just in case she has not got that point. First, what is the explanation for the delays in creating the improved new contracts for NHS dentists? We are spending £3 billion: why are we still in a situation where the actual terms of the contract—the piece of paper—are preventing people from getting into this worthy, skilled and amazing profession?

Secondly, what is the plan to address the recruitment issues? We have heard that almost 1,000 dentists quit the NHS last year; we have heard about the people going back to European countries; and we have heard that people are not coming from further afield abroad. Can existing resources be used to improve recruitment and retention? The Minister has responded to me very clearly: we have similar problems with midwifery services. We have lots of recruitment and retention issues in the NHS, so there are similarities; what can we do?

Thirdly, how are the Government using the post-pandemic period to reimagine NHS dentistry in both areas, the preventive action and the responsive package? With preventive action, we are hoping to bring in family hubs around the country that children can access from birth. Can those hubs be used to improve children’s and families’ awareness of healthcare and dental health? Also, turning to the responsive package, the points about data collection really worry me. As we have heard from a number of colleagues, we are never going to improve services if our CCGs around the country do not have the information they need.

Finally, I want everybody to think about the pain of toothache. It is absolutely awful to go through, and our constituents are really worried about this. I think we can make changes: I do not think that this is just a money issue, and given that there is so much cross-party support to make a change, I hope that we can do so.

15:44

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I am delighted that we are being guided by you, Ms Ali. As a dentist—extremely part time—I am fascinated by the interest in this issue. I hope that some dentists read Hansard and find out that somebody actually cares about them. One of my hon. Friends asked why they were leaving the profession. It is a tough job—a really tough job. If I want relief from a couple of hours of dentistry in a week, I come into the House of Commons—it is a lot easier.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for his introduction to the debate. It was a real expedition, right across the whole scene. I will suggest that we create an honorary degree in dental administration especially for him, because he covered it so beautifully.

Let me start very simply. I will not go through all the bits and pieces that everybody else has talked about; I will just cruise across the surface. We have three different groups of dentists: fully private, fully NHS, and mixed. The last group is the largest by far; and, to a considerable degree and in spite of some of the accusations today, that is by patient demand. It is what the patients want. It is not always the case that they feel forced into it because they cannot get the service elsewhere. The comment was made that we do not have enough dentists, but the BDA says that we have. I do not agree with the BDA, but this will not be the first time. We do need more dentists. If we had more dentists, we would get over the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) had of finding someone to live in his little rural area, because if they were looking for a job and there were not jobs in the other areas, they would go there.

It is worth pointing out that dentists working in the NHS are not actually in the NHS; they are independent dentists working for the NHS. That makes quite a difference to the relationship and makes it somewhat more difficult for the Minister to influence dentists as she might well like to. It is also worth pointing out that a number of dental plan organisations are encouraging dentists to abandon the national health service and provide services within their private plan system. I still get dental magazines as a bit of light relief—well, lightish relief—and every one that I get has advertisements promoting dentists coming out of the national health service, for all sorts of reasons, some of which are fictitious.

Covid, in spite of what one hon. Gentleman said, has been a huge problem—not just for medical services but for dentistry. With the initial lockdown, all dental surgeries were required to close. Emergency clinics were set up and they were successful, but extremely limited—“a bit brutal” would be one way to put it. Fortunately, the closure of surgeries was relatively short-lived. After a period, they reopened—understandably, under heavy covid hygiene procedures. Those procedures really jammed up the works. This is of course understandable, because at that stage we did not have vaccinations, and with the aerosol spray from the dentist working on the patient’s mouth, you could almost see covid spread across the room. The cleaning down and waiting time between patients—fallow time—really damaged productivity. But we are getting past that now. I hear the Prime Minister is going to tell us that we are all lovely, everything is fine, covid has gone and so on. That is slightly tongue in cheek—sorry, I should not really say “tongue in cheek”, should I? By the way, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about dentistry and teeth being part of all health. The chief dental officer has a lovely saying, which is that we should put dentistry, or the mouth, back in the body. That is really important.

The combination of the restrictions, all the rules and then, as I have discovered, the extremely heavy regulation requirements of the Care Quality Commission meant that a considerable number of dentists thought, “I have had enough” or, “I’ve possibly had enough,” and then said, “I’ve had enough,” and retired. Progressively, the surgery cleaning down and fallow time has been better understood by dentists and they have been quicker at it and faster, but I still feel that there is an opportunity now, with what the Prime Minister is going to tell us, for us to cut that out. The Government do not always do very nice things for dentists, but one nice thing that they did for dentists was that they gave them the inoculations early on. They gave them not just for the dentists but for all the staff, even down to the cleaner. That is vital, because it will, I think, give us an opportunity to remove the fallow time—get rid of it.

For decades pre-covid, there was a shortage of dentists. There was certainly a shortage of dentists providing NHS services in particular areas. The way to get around that, as I have said, is to have more dentists. If we have more dentists for fewer jobs, they will go to other areas to work. Dentists are independent, so they have an opportunity to change that. Sourcing and increasing the number of dental practitioners is slow and relatively limited.

The most obvious solution is dental schools; we have touched on that. Every second place in the country wants a new dental school next to its hospital. I am sure that would solve the problem, but goodness knows how we would afford it, let alone get the people to teach in them. We have to remember that the basic dental degree takes five years, and the practitioner that comes out after five years needs a two-year apprenticeship before I would let them loose on my cat or dog, let alone one of my children.

Another way to get dentists is to attract them from overseas. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned that; it is a great source. When I came here, every second dentist had an Australian accent. The practice I worked at for many years—quite a big one in south-west London—was staffed only by Australians and New Zealanders, and occasionally a South African. The principal got into real trouble with the Commission for Racial Equality. He rang up the agency and said, “I want another dentist. Can you find one? They’ve got to come from Australia or New Zealand.” He was told, “That’s racist. You can’t do that,” but there were hundreds if not thousands of them coming over from the Commonwealth.

The problem with people coming over here has been touched on: they have to go through courses and all the rest of it to become registered. We did not have that then and we do not have to have it now. Wherever the school is, it is the school that needs to be assessed. If the school passes its assessment, any student that passes and becomes a qualified dentist should be allowed in—just like that. That is what happened when I came. I handed over my certificate and the General Dental Council, bless it, stamped it and said, “Thank you very much. Off you go.” We should be doing that.

I had a complaint from the GDC that the people it sent out to assess the University of Otago in New Zealand, for example, did a quick tour of the dental hospital and then disappeared off to the vineyards. I am sure there was no truth in that. But we could get dentists from the Commonwealth, and we could keep bringing people in from the EU. People from the Commonwealth stopped coming when we joined the EU and they went to the United States. I ran a big function here for Otago graduates, and a vast number of professors of dentistry from Otago University came over from the United States. Normally, they would have come here; normally, we would have had them. Normally, we understand their English a little bit better, even if they are Australian, than the Americans do. That has to be an attraction. We should still be able, as I have said, to get European and Scandinavian dentists. That has to continue, because it would help massively.

We have to recognise that we will not have an instant or even a fast solution to the problems laid out today. Everybody has laid out problems, and a few people have come up with ideas. I am sorry for the Minister, because she is getting hammered for the problems, and she will not be able to provide a fast solution. It is not a case of money; it is a case of having the dentists to do the work.

Our best long-term hope, which one or two people have touched on, is prevention. The chief dental officer and others have an ongoing campaign to teach children, especially little children in day nurseries and so on, about toothbrushing. Having worked in the east end for some time, I know that when we ask a child, “What’s your toothbrush like?”, they sometimes say, “What’s a toothbrush?” We have to get that across to the kids. Kids love brushing their teeth. The mess is phenomenal, but they love it. The campaign is really starting to work. Wales and Scotland are ahead of us on that, but we are catching up, and it is making a noticeable difference. We can actually see the difference.

Our second hope, of course, is fluoridation. In other countries—Australia, New Zealand, Canada and so on—fluoride is in between 60% and 80% of water supplies. It makes a huge difference, and with no possible detriment to health. In this country, 10% of water supplies are fluoridated. It is pathetic. The Bill going through at the moment represents an opportunity to change that, but some nations have suddenly realised the real difference that can be made. New Zealand, if I dare mention that country again, is thinking of saying that every single water supply throughout the nation—it is a biggish country, about the same size as this one, but the population is tiny—will be fluoridated. That is a dramatic step, but we could do it. If we did, along with promoting fluoride toothpaste and teaching kids how to brush their teeth and cut down on sugar, then instead of being one of the worst dental states in the western world, we could be one of the best. It is a real opportunity and something we could achieve.

I know that the Minister cannot do anything overnight, and we have to accept that—

[Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I ask the hon. Gentleman to wrap up his speech?

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I am wrapping up right now.

I know that the Minister cannot do anything overnight, but I wish her the best of luck with the struggle.

[Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)]

I am most grateful. I have two more speakers to get in. To ensure that the Minister and shadow Minister have time to respond, I would be grateful if hon. Members could adopt an informal limit of three to four minutes.

15:56

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this important debate. It is clearly a huge, topical, cross-party issue that has largely been discussed in a collegiate fashion.

On the rare occasions that I get any press coverage for my work as a Member of Parliament, I am often referred to as “senior” or “veteran”, which I think says more about my age than my experience. When I got here in 2015, this was one of the first things I raised with the then Minister for dentistry, Alistair Burt. To be fair, things have changed since then; they have actually got a lot worse. The reality is that it is impossible for most people in my constituency to get on an NHS waiting list. We must be honest with the public: either we open the gates so that more people can access treatment, or we tell them that dentistry is for some people and not for others.

The Father of the House said that it would be helpful to be able to search for availability in each of our constituencies. I agree, but I know exactly what it would say for my constituency, because this morning I checked across North Yorkshire—which is larger than my constituency—and there is simply no availability on NHS waiting lists. It has been like that for most of the seven years I have been in Parliament. The pity is that I have dentists who will accept NHS patients, but they just cannot get the units of dental activity. There is a real impasse between the issues and our honesty in saying whether NHS dentistry treatment is available in our constituencies.

Of course, that has real-world effects, and I will read from a couple of emails. A Mrs Weston wrote to me this morning:

“My son, an adult with special needs… is on universal credit and PIP, and he has to pay for private treatment as we cannot get on an NHS list… He has had to have a tooth removed because of an abscess, something that could well have been avoided if he had had regular check-ups.”

Even worse than that, a lady from Rillington wrote:

“My daughter has a toothache and needs to see a dentist… Our dentist ceased providing NHS services and there is nowhere else we can get into… They advised us to ring 111… and we were told a dentist would get back to us within 7 days. No one did. Tonight we rang again. We were on hold for 2 hours before we got through to the Yorkshire and Humber Dental Services, who told us they have no capacity to help.”

This is simply unacceptable.

Somewhat different from most of today’s speeches, the key thing that I want to talk about is commissioning. In my constituency—my hon. Friend the Minister knows this, and she has been very responsive on it—the NHS dentist on Bondgate in Helmsley closed totally in September 2020. It will not reopen until April ’22 at the earliest—that is the predicted date of opening—so it will have taken 20 months for the NHS people who commission services to reopen the service, despite the fact that we had someone who was willing to take the contract right from the start. On Kirkgate in Thirsk, it will have taken six months, so that is slightly quicker—apparently, that will open in March this year.

The contract is wrong. This “five plus two” contract, rather than a general dental services contract, deters investment and is very bureaucratic, having to be revisited consistently. We must simplify the commissioning process. We must put a rocket up the people commissioning this—20 months is simply not acceptable. I agree with others who suggest devolving this stuff back to local areas: we can look after it and commission the treatment, rather than having it all done centrally by super-regional managers.

16:00

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

I am very grateful to be called to speak, Ms Ali. I had to step out of the debate briefly to have an urgent meeting with the Business Secretary about energy prices. Thank you so much for fitting me in. I will be as quick as I can.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this important debate on a subject that comes up frequently on the doorsteps of High Peak. I thank the dentists, orthodontists, hygienists, technicians and all those who have worked incredibly hard in dental practices over the past two years through the pandemic. We are lucky to have some excellent dentists in High Peak, including Dean Kennedy dental practice, which happens to share an entrance with my constituency office in Whaley Bridge.

We all know that dentists work hard for their communities. Nevertheless, a large number of local people have been in touch with me about how difficult it is to get a dental appointment. The response to a freedom of information request by the British Dental Association indicates that 70% of appointments, or 28 million courses of treatment, have been missed in England since the start of the pandemic. Making up that backlog is essential.

I therefore welcome the recent announcement of an additional £50 million investment in NHS dentistry, including nearly £9 million for my region, to help patients access dental treatment and to catch up on that backlog. Beyond the short term, however, it is important for the Government to take steps to guarantee the long-term sustainability of NHS dentistry. Far too many people are finding it impossible to get registered at a new NHS dental practice. I have experienced that difficulty at first hand, in how difficult it was to get registered with an NHS dentist near my home in Glossop.

According to “The Great British Oral Health Report”, carried out by mydentist, 53% of the public have not had a routine dental check-up in the past year. Of those who had not seen a dentist, 28% said that they could not get an appointment and 14% that they were unable to register with an NHS dentist. Those are worrying figures.

I fear that we could be storing up real long-term problems for public health, as relatively routine dental problems go unchecked and untreated, and develop into much more serious conditions, which will need much more expensive treatments in future. Several hon. Members also identified concerns about mouth cancers going undiagnosed in the long run, which is a big worry.

Part of the problem is that there are simply not enough dentists. We need a serious drive to improve both the recruitment and the retention of dentists. I have raised the issue directly with Ministers previously, including making the suggestion—as other Members might have done today—that the Government should look again at the recognition of overseas dental qualifications.

The long-term plan for the NHS rightly emphasised the importance of preventive healthcare, and dentistry should be at the frontline of that effort. I hope that NHS dentists will be represented properly in the governance of the new integrated care systems, including in Derbyshire, so we can have a truly integrated and joined-up approach to public health. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the points that I and other Members have made today. Swift action is needed.

16:04

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali.

I am delighted to respond to this brilliant debate, in which we have had 23 speakers from all parties. Before I go further, however, I feel that I ought to thank my own dentist. Aidan has served me and my family well for more than 20 years. I will always follow him, wherever he sets up practice, and I have told him that he is not allowed to retire, ever.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for their diligent work in this area and for securing the debate. It is clear that the current situation simply is not working. As we have heard, staff are leaving the profession in droves, patients are struggling to access the appointments they need, and staff have been left undervalued, under-resourced and under-appreciated for far too long. This Government are putting the future of NHS dentistry at risk, and we have heard about some of that today in the choices confronting the sector.

I am sure that the Minister will tell us about a plan, I am pretty sure that she will tell us that she has heard the concerns that have been expressed today, and I am very sure that she will blame the last Labour Government. However, I think we need to ask, “Where is the action?” We welcome the additional funding for the NHS—the £50 million injection—but it ignores the wider structural issues affecting dentistry. It will fund less than 1% of the 40 million appointments we have lost since the start of the pandemic; it is a mere drop in the ocean. The impact of those lost appointments is clear. “The Great British Oral Health Report”, published in August, showed that a third of the population is estimated to be suffering from undiagnosed tooth decay. That is particularly problematic among children, as we have heard, with a child being admitted to hospital for tooth extraction every 10 minutes in the UK. That is a shocking statistic.

We know that some of our most vulnerable communities rely on NHS dentistry, and increasing barriers to access only fuel inequality. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke particularly cogently about that inequality. Before the pandemic, tooth decay among children in the most deprived communities was 3.8 times higher than among those in the least deprived communities. That severely affects my constituency of Bristol South.

Again, as many have said, we need a proper long-term strategy to address the workforce crisis affecting the whole of our NHS, as well as reform of the broken contract system. The Minister has said on many occasions how broken that contract system is. It has been in place since 2006. As we know, it was negotiated by the Labour Government. We know times have changed, but we also know the Government have been trying to change the contract since 2011, which may give some indication of how difficult it is. I have some sympathy with that, but a decade should be enough time to get on with sorting the problem.

Even as recently as Monday’s Adjournment debate, we have heard Ministers say, “We’ve started work on that reform.” We are all desperate to hear how it is progressing and, to be honest, for the Government to get a bit of a move on with it. It was a commitment in the Conservative manifesto of 2010—12 years ago. It would behove the Minister, after the number of debates that we have had, to come forward and say when we can expect to see the fruits of that decade of discussion. It is a problem that urgently needs tackling, not kicking further into the long grass.

When the Minister talks about there being a shortage of dentists wanting to do NHS work, I wonder whether she really understands why that is the case. Surveys by the British Dental Association have shown that 80% of owners of predominately NHS practices say that morale is low or very low. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) talked about the mental health stresses of the workforce. Some 76% said that their job was extremely or very stressful, and 45% want to leave dentistry within the next 12 months. Of the 93% who struggled to recruit a dentist to work in their practice, more than half cited associates’ reluctance to work in the NHS as the main reason they struggled to fill the vacancy. With morale through the floor and recruitment near impossible for many practices, is it any wonder that NHS dentistry is in the state it is?

Of course, this is true across so much of our NHS and social care sector: workforce is the critical problem. Many hon. Members—notably the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt)—frequently urge the Government to bring forward a credible workforce strategy for all parts of the NHS. It is long, long overdue.

I will briefly share some testimonies from NHS dentists working on the frontline. One dentist in Shropshire said that the date of this debate

“exactly matches the last day that I will be providing NHS dentistry after 17 years of service.”

They said that the contract has not been fit for purpose for a long time and that covid has broken what was already a strained system. We thank them for their service and wish them well, but we are sad to lose them.

A dentist in east Devon who had lost two members of staff said:

“A large number of our patients are on benefits or have low incomes and with a huge increase in energy bills on the horizon this number is bound to increase. I have had 3 days off during the last 12 months…I’m tired, not sleeping, close to burning out.”

These are shocking testimonies from the frontline.

It is not just dentists who are seeing these problems; patients are feeling the impact of this situation harshly, as hon. Members across the House will know from their casework. In a recent Adjournment debate about Bristol and the south-west, I raised the issue of a pregnant constituent who was unable to access care at that critical time. This is the No. 1 issue raised by Healthwatch. Patients are struggling. As we know from YouGov and as we have heard today, 20% of patients are resorting to DIY dentistry. The security that NHS dentistry provides to so many people in this country is being eroded, and it will be eroded until that safety net is no longer there.

We have heard some severe challenges from Government Back Benchers about the Government’s long-term view on the survival of NHS dentistry. With the cost of living crisis squeezing households across the country, people will be faced with choosing between their health, heating their homes or putting food on the table. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said, people are being priced out.

The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) was very kind about some of my expertise in the field. We have worked together collegiately in other areas—on trailer safety, notably. Generally, I think devolved budgets and personal budgets are a good thing, and I have always advocated empowering patients, but, sadly, their use has been reduced in social care and they are not being utilised. I am not sure that they are the answer in this particular area, but something radical clearly needs to be done about the contracts.

I say gently to the Conservative party that that the Labour party does not think it acceptable that young children are in hospital or toothless while £4.6 billion-worth of loans float out of the Treasury, while the personal protective equipment contract is written down, or while whatever other ill management of the Budget we have seen from this Government happens. I personally look forward to a debate between the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) on the efficacy of the Government’s management of the economy. That would be a well-informed debate and I would certainly back it.

I say to the Minister that we have seen no evidence about dentistry being a priority for the Department of Health and Social Care. The new White Paper, which came out yesterday, talks about better integration across primary and community health, adult social care, public health and housing, but there is no mention of dentistry. Again, as a lot of people have said, making dentistry part of our general community service would be a good thing.

The debate has highlighted that the problem was urgent even before the pandemic. There is no data; it is clear that dentistry is an outlier of public and community health. That is a long-term problem. I am afraid that I do not think that the Government have taken it seriously in their recent White Papers. We would all support the Minister in that battle at the Department of Health and in bringing forward something to address referrals to the contract much more urgently.

16:12

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing the debate and I am pleased that he is seeing a local improvement after we met recently. I also thank the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for securing the debate.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) that we have seen a level of interest in and concern about the matter across the Chamber, and that we need to ensure that we take some of the politics out of it because there are some difficult steps to take to improve dental services across the board. I welcome the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), whose clinical experience is so helpful in the debate. I reassure colleagues on both sides of the House that since I came into post in September, dentistry has absolutely been a priority for me. I have been working night and day to try to make some short and long-term improvements, because I am live to all the concerns that have been raised.

We have set up some joint working, which was not happening before, between NHS England, the chief dental officer and the Department, and I meet the BDA regularly because we are serious about reform. I say to any dentists watching the debate that I absolutely understand the problems that make delivering an NHS contract unbelievably difficult. The contract is the No. 1 long-term issue that we have to deal with, and we are starting progress on that as soon as possible. I will come to some specifics shortly, but first let me mention covid.

I know that there has been some concern that covid is a lame excuse but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley said, it has had a significant impact on access to dental services in the past 18 months. When lockdown happened, services were immediately reduced; only urgent services were allowed. That continued for a significant period. It was not until 8 June 2020 that practices were allowed to open for up to 20% of normal activity and it was not until last year that that went up to 60% and, towards the end of the year, to 65%. Although dentists were compensated for their loss of income during that period, the backlog that that generated is shown in all our postbags right now.

I place on record my thanks to dental teams up and down the country. Urgent appointments went back to pre-pandemic levels in December 2020, but with only 85% of activity allowed the backlogs will only grow. We need to be honest about that; the impact is significant. I completely understand the pressures that that is putting on dentists. We are keen to support dentistry where we can to get it up to 85%. It has been difficult during omicron with staff sicknesses and patients having to cancel when they become covid positive, and I absolutely recognise the stress and strain that covid has put on the system, but we have to be honest. I think it was the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) who mentioned this, and I am happy to accept the difficulties we face. There were problems before covid and there are those same problems post covid, and we are absolutely focused on starting to tackle them.

Let me make a couple of points. There is no patient registration system for dentistry—that is one of the myths. It is not like GP practices, where someone signs up and is then on the list. Patients can go from dentist to dentist if there is one available, and we are making sure that we open up capacity where it exists.

We have written to all dentists to ask them to update their capacity so that we can put it on the website mentioned by the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), and we have also asked them to run a cancellation list. If someone cancels, the practice will be able actively to contact the next person on the list. Capacity is being generated by that, but I am aware of the problems with capacity across the board. We have talked about many parts of the country, such as Norfolk and Devon, that are experiencing capacity issues, but all parts of the country have experienced a squeeze in the number of appointments available.

A couple of weeks ago, we announced £50 million to help with some of those issues. I know that some Members have been quite dismissive of that this afternoon, but we know that it will cover the period to the end of this financial year to buy some urgent capacity for the system and to help deliver more than 300,000 appointments that currently cannot happen. There has been good uptake, even in the few weeks since the money was announced. Regions across the country are signing up and because the payments to dentists are much better than under the current contract, there is an appetite among dentists. That shows that if we remunerate dentists adequately they have an interest in taking on NHS work.

I encourage Members from all parties to contact their local commissioners, because we want to ensure that that money is used. If there is no interest, or if they are struggling to spend the money, they should let us know. NHS England has been in contact with local commissioners to get that feedback so that we can make the best use of the money and buy as much capacity as possible.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Does the Minister think that it is acceptable for commissioners to take 20 months commissioning a service when we have dentists who want to take that work and take on that surgery?

[Maria Caulfield]

Absolutely. I will come on to that point, which is valid. We want to increase capacity and there are dentists who want to take on NHS work. When contracts are handed back, we have to do the whole procurement process, and when there is an interested party, even when they are ready to sign on the dotted line, that takes a considerable amount of time. In the Department, we are looking at how we can change the procurement process. It often falls in the lap of local commissioners, but they are stuck with the procedures they have to follow. I am keen to see how, when someone is willing to take up a contract, we can enable that to happen as quickly as possible.

We have also relaxed the upper tolerance threshold and increased activity from 104% to 110% of dental activity. The current contract penalises dentists if they go over their contracted work, which is a perverse disincentive when dentists have capacity and want to take on extra work.

Before I touch on the nub of the problem, I will mention prevention. I am pleased that prevention is being considered and that the Government’s proposals on water fluoridation are part of the Health and Care Bill. I hope Opposition Members will support us when the Bill comes back from the Lords. We are also looking at options for how to introduce supervised tooth brushing in parts of the country where there is the greatest need. I reassure hon. Members that the prevention and oral health element is as key as getting dental procedures done.

The dental contract is the crux of the matter, and we are absolutely committed to reform. I met the BDA this week to start negotiations. We are looking at some quick wins over the next 12 months and some long-term contractual reform to the UDAs. We have started informal negotiations, and the formal negotiations will start in April. We all—the BDA, patients, MPs and the Department —know the urgency. It cannot be a long, protracted negotiation. However, we are working well with the BDA. We are keen to get negotiations under way and to reach a resolution as quickly as possible. We have to make the NHS a better and more attractive place to work, because dentists have other options; I cannot remember which Member said it, but dentists are voting with their feet when it comes to where they want to practice.

On the recruitment, retention and training of dentists, Health Education England published its “Advancing Dental Care Review” in September. It is working through how we can train not just more dentists but the whole dental team, and on how we can upskill dental technicians and dental nurses. We will bring forward legislative changes to enable other members of the dental team to take on more roles. We are setting up centres of dental development in those areas of the country with the biggest shortages, which tend to be coastal and rural. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) about Norfolk—I think I heard that several times. We are looking at where in the country those dental deserts are and whether we can match them to centres of dental development.

Members may not realise that this week the Department announced a consultation with the General Dental Council on the registration of international dentists and whether we can put in place a process to recognise the qualifications of dentists from around the world, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley mentioned. The overseas registration exam, which they have to take, was suspended throughout the whole of covid, so we have a backlog of around 700 dentists waiting to take it. The first exams started a couple of weeks ago, and there are exams in place for the rest of the year to try to get through that backlog. We are confident that we can do that.

We need to work on how we recognise existing qualifications to remove the barrier of having to do an exam. Again, I encourage colleagues to respond positively to the consultation on the GDC website and to the developments it is making. My hon. Friend the Father of the House has written to me about international dentists having to take the exams within five years of their first attempt, and whether those rules can be relaxed. That is also part of the consultation. We very much recognise that covid has had an impact on those rules too.

I reassure colleagues that I am working on bringing NHS England, dentists and the BDA together so that we can make a difference as quickly as possible. The changes in the Health and Care Bill on integrated care systems and having accountable people for commissioning locally are crucial. Integrated care boards will be statutory from 1 July, and will have accountable officers. I strongly urge colleagues to speak to their ICBs or CCGs, because there are differences in practice across the country. Some commission dentistry really well, some not so well. Very often, if the money allocated to dentistry is not ringfenced, and if it is not spent locally, it goes into other healthcare provision and is lost from dentistry. I encourage Members to hold the feet of their local commissioning bodies to the fire on what they are doing with the money given to them. We are here to support them, and work will be done on dentistry commissioning going forward.

In the short time I have had, I hope I have been able to provide assurances that dealing with the situation is not without its challenges. There is no silver bullet that will resolve all the problems. There is not a quick-fix solution, but I am working at pace, as is the Department, to reform the contract. Work is starting in April on the formal negotiations, and I hope that will improve recruitment and retention in dentistry. We value the work that dentists do, which for too long has gone unrecognised and has been a Cinderella part of the service. The people who have suffered are not just the dentists, but the patients.

16:25

[Peter Aldous]

It has been a very interesting debate, and we have heard some great ideas. It has largely been consensual, although I welcomed the little bit of sparring, because it added to proceedings. One thing I did not do was thank the dentistry heroes during the covid pandemic. They are the people who have really been on the frontline.

I enjoyed the interludes into Shakespeare from my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd). Ian Fleming was also quoted, and I could cornily reply by saying the whole debate should leave us very shaken and stirred.

Some interesting issues on funding have been raised. I take on board a lot of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who is no longer in his place, about creating innovative funding solutions. He is right to say that there is not endless money, but I feel that NHS dentistry has been the Cinderella service when it comes to funding. I sense that part of the problem is that it has been shunted off into the sidings of the NHS.

We heard three very useful points from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who basically said that the health of our teeth is inextricably linked to our health service. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said that our mouths are not divorced from our bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), whose contribution was really significant, said that dentistry and the mouth need to go back into the body. I sense that if we do that, the funding issue will begin to be solved. The primary and secondary parts of the NHS, and the mental health side, will realise that we need to get dentistry right, because that will have a positive knock-on impact on the remainder of the service.

Prevention is vital. It was striking that I had four interventions on the importance of fluoridation, innovative working such as supervised toothbrushing, and getting into schools and care homes—that is so important as well.

We keep coming back to the need for contract reform. It was striking that we heard that it is not a question of dentists going out into the private sector, having been lured by large sums of money. It is a question of their being driven out by the soul-destroying system under the existing contract. It was helpful to hear the Minister say that there were some quick wins being put in place and that the negotiations start in earnest in April.

We do not want to just go away, pat ourselves on the back and say that we have had a great debate. We want meaningful progress. When I proposed my amendment to the Health and Care Bill, one of the things that I wanted was annual reporting, to see where we are. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the Father of the House, talked about coming back in six months’ time for a progress report, and I hope that the Government will agree to that. We can look at how we do that—perhaps through another Backbench Business Committee debate.

Ms Ali, you are looking at me. I have summed up as best I can. It has been a great debate, but let us not stop here.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered access to NHS dentistry.

16:29

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Thursday 10th February 2022 Written Statements

Thursday 10 February 2022

Ministry of Defence Annual Estimate 2022-23

Thursday 10th February 2022 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)]

The Ministry of Defence Votes A Estimate 2022-23, will be laid before the House on 10 February 2022 as HC 980. This outlines the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for each service in the armed forces during financial year 2022-23, including an increase for Royal Navy and Army Regulars and decreases for the Army Regular Reserve and Army Reserve. Full details can be found in the publication.

These numbers do not constitute the strength of the armed forces, which is published separately in the UK armed forces quarterly service personnel statistics.

[HCWS604]

Ministry of Defence Supplementary Votes 2021-22

Thursday 10th February 2022 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)]

The “Ministry of Defence Votes A Supplementary Votes 2021-22”, will be laid before the House on 10 February 2022 as HC 981. This outlines the increased maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for service in the Royal Naval Reserve Officers subject to additional duties commitment (ADC) from 40 to 80 during financial year 2021-22.

These numbers do not constitute the strength of the armed forces, which is published separately in the UK armed forces quarterly service personnel statistics.

[HCWS605]

Ukraine

Thursday 10th February 2022 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)]

Further to my commitment to keep this House informed on the security situation in Ukraine, I am today providing an update on the package of defensive equipment the UK is sending to Ukraine.

I can today announce that, in response to a request from the Ukrainian Government, we are providing additional defensive equipment including body armour, helmets and combat boots. The first shipments arrived in Kyiv this week. They are a purely defensive capability and pose no threat to Russia. This package, requested by the Ukrainians, complements the training and capabilities that Ukraine already has and those that are being provided by the UK and other allies in Europe and the United States.

The UK Ministry of Defence has a long-standing relationship with our Ukrainian counterparts. We unequivocally support Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and we will continue to support them through diplomacy and by providing defensive capabilities to Ukraine, focusing on areas where the Ukrainians seek our assistance.

[HCWS608]

War Pensions Scheme Uprating 2022

Thursday 10th February 2022 Written Statements

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)]

The new rates of war pensions and allowances proposed from April 2022 are set out in the tables below. The annual uprating of war pensions and allowances for 2022 will take place from the week beginning 11 April. Rates for 2022 are increasing by 3.1% in line with the September 2021 consumer price index.

The Times and The Sunday Times: News UK Undertakings

Thursday 10th February 2022 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

On 1 February 2021 News UK submitted an application requesting the Secretary of State to release in full the undertakings accepted in 2019. The 2019 undertakings were accepted in lieu of the conditions put in place when the newspapers were acquired by News International in 1981.

The conditions included provisions relating to the continued publication of The Times and The Sunday Times as separate newspapers, to the number and power of the independent national directors of Times Newspapers Holdings Ltd, and to editorial control over the journalists working for, and political comment and opinion published in, each of newspapers.

The undertakings accepted in 2019 made changes to the conditions, to allow for sharing of journalistic resources between the two publications and to strengthen the arrangements relating to the independent national directors. News UK now seeks the release of the undertakings in their entirety.

On 24 June DCMS issued a public “invitation to comment”, which included a redacted copy of the application, and the written views received from the editors and independent national directors. On 30 July, DCMS requested Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority to advise by 24 September on the public interest considerations and changes to market circumstances relevant to the case, respectively. The CMA’s report concludes that releasing the undertakings would have a significantly positive impact on News UK’s financial position and ability to adapt to changing market conditions. Ofcom’s report concludes that the impact on media plurality of releasing the undertakings is likely to be limited and that, on balance, releasing the undertakings is unlikely to operate against the public interest needs for free expression of opinion and accuracy of news.

On 25 November, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, I announced that, having taken into account the reports and all relevant information submitted to the Department, I was minded to grant the request by News UK and release the undertakings. I consulted publicly on this minded-to decision and did not receive any further evidence relevant to my decision. I therefore confirm that I am satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances since the acceptance of the undertakings in 2019 and that, having considered the public interest considerations applying to newspapers, the undertakings are no longer appropriate or necessary for the purpose they were intended to achieve and so should be released.

In accordance with the Enterprise Act 2002, I have taken a final decision to approve the application and will notify News UK that the undertakings relating to The Times and The Sunday Times are to be released.

[HCWS607]

Mental Health Strategy

Thursday 10th February 2022 Written Statements

[The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)]

This week, the UK has marked Children’s Mental Health Week with the theme of “growing together.” I am grateful for the brilliant work of our vibrant voluntary and community sector, who are encouraging children and young people to take action to look after their mental health and learn how they can support others.

Across the country, we are talking more about our mental health and wellbeing than ever before. Thanks to the trailblazing courage of campaigners in the public eye, and thousands of quiet conversations in homes, schools and workplaces, more and more people now feel comfortable opening up about their mental health.

Over 4 million people have used our Every Mind Matters resources to make a tailored mind plan to help them take active steps to look after their wellbeing. Initiatives like “Thriving at Work” have driven improvements to workplace wellbeing. The NHS is offering care and support to more people with mental illnesses than ever before, backed by record levels of investment, workforce expansion and the advancing mental health equalities strategy. And we are reforming the Mental Health Act to improve care for people who are acutely unwell and to address ethnic disparities in detention rates.

Since March 2020, the wide-ranging effects of the pandemic and the impacts on mental health have fostered a strong spirit of innovation in the NHS and collaboration across Government. The Government published a cross-Government covid-19 mental health and wellbeing recovery action plan for 2021-22 in March 2021, backed by an additional £500 million. As part of this additional investment, we are accelerating the roll-out of mental health support teams in schools and colleges so that an estimated 3 million children and young people (around 35% of pupils in England) will be covered by these teams by 2023.

But I know there is much more to do. That is why I am announcing my intention to develop a new long-term, cross-Government mental health strategy in the coming year.

The Government will launch a public discussion paper this spring to inform the development of the strategy. This will set us up for a wide-ranging and ambitious conversation about potential ways to improve the nation’s mental health and wellbeing over the coming decade, both within and beyond Government and the NHS. We will be engaging widely, especially with people with experience of mental ill-health, to develop the strategy and build consensus. I will be calling on all parts of society—including teachers, businesses, voluntary organisations, and health and social care leaders—to set out their proposals for how we can shift the dial on mental health.

Alongside this, preventing suicides is a key priority for this Government. I am acutely aware that suicide prevention requires specific, co-ordinated action and national focus, and I am committed to working with the sector over the coming year to review our 2012 suicide prevention strategy for England. I am today announcing around an additional £1.5 million to top up our existing £4 million grant fund, which will help support the suicide prevention voluntary and community sector to meet the needs of people at risk of suicide or in crisis.

[HCWS609]

Grand Committee

Thursday 10th February 2022 Grand Committee

Thursday 10 February 2022

Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill

Committee stage
Thursday 10th February 2022 Grand Committee

Committee

13:00

Relevant document: 19th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

[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.

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed.

Clause 4: “Adversely affected by coronavirus”

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

1: Clause 4, page 3, line 37, leave out “premises, or parts of premises,” and insert “businesses or premises of a specified description, or parts of businesses or premises”.
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would ensure that subsection (3) applies to requirements for the closure of businesses or parts of businesses as well as those for the closure of premises or parts of premises.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to debate this important Bill in Grand Committee. I would first like to speak to a group of technical amendments tabled in my name, starting with Amendment 1 to Clause 4. This clause is vital to the Bill. It sets out what is meant by a business being “adversely affected by coronavirus”, with certain rent debts under such businesses’ tenancies being in scope for arbitration. Essentially, businesses or premises that were required by regulations to close during a specified period meet the test. Subsection (3) provides important clarity that a requirement to close at particular times is a closure requirement. Amendment 1 ensures that this provision applies in relation to closure of either premises or businesses, or parts of premises or businesses. I am sure noble Lords will agree that this minor amendment produces important clarification.

Turning to Amendment 4, arbitration under the Bill will provide a legally binding solution to unpaid commercial rent from the pandemic. This is important to give certainty and enable parties to return to normal contractual relations. If a tenant is awarded relief, such as a reduction in the protected rent they must pay, they should not have liability for the rest of the original debt. If a guarantor or former tenant ultimately pays the protected rent following an arbitral award, they should be required to pay only the sum required by the award. This should be the case whether, technically, a guarantee or an indemnity has been provided. Amendment 4 expressly sets out those effects of an award. This is intended to give clarity, as requested in a comment in written evidence in the other place. I am grateful to all those who took the time to give their feedback on the technicalities of the Bill. I am pleased to propose this additional clarity through Amendment 4.

Finally, I shall address Amendments 11 and 12. Schedule 2 contains a provision specifying that the Bill’s moratorium and related provisions on debt claims apply both to tenants and anyone who guarantees the tenant’s obligation. I am sure noble Lords will agree that this is important to ensure that the tenant has a genuine opportunity to access arbitration. Amendment 11 ensures that this provision’s protection applies to former tenants who may be liable for unpaid rent under a business tenancy, whether or not they have entered into an authorised guarantee agreement. Amendment 11 also clarifies that the provision applies whether, technically, a guarantee or indemnity has been provided. This amendment addresses a helpful comment made in written evidence in the other place.

Amendment 12 has the same effect as Amendment 11, but applies to Schedule 3’s moratorium and related provisions on winding-up petitions, bankruptcy orders and petitions.

I hope noble Lords will agree that these technical amendments provide useful clarity. I commend them to the Committee and I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, far be it from me to delay any part of this important Bill, but I would like to be clear about the Minister’s insertion of “businesses or premises”. There does not necessarily seem to be a direct alignment between the two terms. For instance, is the closure of the business inescapably the product of a prohibition, as opposed to something that is advisory? I refer back to the great debate over whether something was guidance or mandatory. It seems to me that we could be looking at businesses with subsidiary operations and so on. If we are not careful, something that affects one part of a business but not the particular part we are talking about, namely the rent on particular premises, would not necessarily align. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what is intended there.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, fools rush in where angels fear to tread—I shall try to speak briefly. I welcome the fact that the Minister has been flexible and responded to points raised in the other House. Government Amendment 4 is a really good thing, but I have the same question: is this guidance or a mandatory process for the arbitrators? My understanding is that, if a tenant is able to reach a settlement through this process, that tenant no longer carries the stain of the unpaid element of the arbitration process. That therefore means that this would not stand against their credit rating and I wonder whether the Government have considered how this might not filter through into the credit rating system. As I am sure the Minister knows, the credit rating system tends to make life very difficult if you get on the wrong side of it. Some clarity on that would be really helpful.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I also extend our thanks to the Minister for his courtesy, as always, and for picking up these—as he made clear—technical issues. We have received numerous representations on the Bill from stakeholders. I was pleased to hear the Government picking up some of the very detailed concerns about liabilities. We recognise Amendments 11 and 12 as positive, reflecting the concerns raised by stakeholders. I shall be interested in hearing the clarifications from the Minister on the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, particularly on definitions. The complexity of these areas makes us all try to look at the unintended consequences that could flow from making one change. Sadly, we know the pressures that so many of these businesses and tenants are under and the potential risk to their future liability.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

With apologies to the Minister, I forgot to complete what I was going to ask with respect to government Amendments 11 and 12. Would they in any way change the relationship with former tenants who have unpaid rent when it comes to the process of recovering that rent? That was not clear to me from what the Minister said, probably because it was not the intention of what he was describing. Can he clarify that they would not in any way downgrade the landlord’s ability to pursue unpaid debt from a former tenant?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for those points. I will answer them as best as I can because there are some technical issues underlying this. I hope noble Lords will not mind if I have to write in amplification of the answers I give.

First, on the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the coronavirus regulations imposed mandated closure requirements on either businesses or premises. Sometimes the run two together but they do not necessarily do so. The Bill applies to all such cases where there was a requirement in the coronavirus legislation so one has to look back to that legislation to understand the difference between businesses and premises in it. However, I will write to clarify that further for the noble Earl.

On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the intention is that the arbitral award, which is binding, will substitute itself for the debt that previously existed. On that basis, it should not apply to the credit rating of the person concerned. Having said that, I guess we all have experience, either directly or through colleagues, of where that perhaps has not flowed through to the outcome as it should have done—in which case, the answer, I am sure, is that one must take it up with a credit rating agency. However, if that were to happen, it would be an error that would then have to be corrected.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

In the likely event that the Bill becomes law, might there be some way for the department to inform the credit rating agencies about this process? The last thing a business needs if it is trying to get back up and running is to find that its credit has been shut down. Some pre-emptive action with the key credit rating agencies might help to alleviate the situation.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion; I will make sure that we look at it and take it up. Again, it may even be something that we can mention in the guidance as a point of information for those affected.

On the noble Lord’s further point, when a former tenant is liable for the current tenant’s obligations, the Bill prevents landlords exercising relevant remedies against them in respect of protected debt. This is during the Bill’s temporary moratorium period, which is considered as the period during which the arbitration system is open to applications or an arbitration is ongoing. That may not have answered the noble Lord’s questions fully, but I will amplify my answer in correspondence with him.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed.

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed.

13:15

Clause 7: Approval of arbitration bodies

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

2: Clause 7, page 5, line 19, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State must ensure that bodies approved under subsection (1) have adequate resources and sufficient numbers of arbitrators as are (whether alone or as a member of a panel of arbitrators) required to conduct arbitrations under this Part.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that the approved arbitration bodies collectively have sufficient capacity, and resourcing, to hear all arbitrations under this Part.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am grateful for the contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has made in this grouping and look forward to the discussions that we will have, recognising the additional amendment in this group.

I again thank the Minister for the attention to detail in representing the representations from stakeholders —importantly, from both tenants and landlords. I thank him, too, for his letter responding to the concerns raised by noble Lords at Second Reading. I just want to make the point about understanding the real pressure that businesses, tenants and landlords are under at the moment. It has been an incredibly difficult winter for many businesses, as we know and, of course, we are in a situation where we face ongoing pressures from the national insurance rise, energy costs and inflationary pressures. It is a time of great uncertainty for many people affected by the Bill before us. We welcome the moves forward as outlined in the Bill, recognising the complexity and the absolute need to get the detail right, but also the time pressures and the fact that the clock has been ticking for many businesses for some time now.

Of course, running through all that, it is essential that stakeholders have confidence in the system. The reason for Amendment 2 is the need to ensure absolutely that bodies under subsection (1) have adequate resources and sufficient numbers of arbitrators. Through this amendment, we seek reassurance with regard to immediate capacity, but I would also like to ask about evidence and what understanding there is of how much work has been done on resourcing the needs and future demands on services for all those involved. It is essential that everyone feels that they have proper access to a fair hearing. I should like the assurance that all due consideration has been given to the proposed nature of the hearings.

I understand that the assumption is that the hearings will be in public and that oral hearings may be desired by the parties involved. Could that have an undue impact on costs? Would they add to the capacity requirements of the arbitrators? Am I right to understand that a document-only approach would allow for a more efficient process? Is that the understanding behind the direction of travel, and would this be seen to keep costs and time lower?

We understand from our discussions at Second Reading that many cases have now moved to be settled. Would we be right in assuming that the outstanding ones may well be more complex, which explains why they are moving forward to seeking arbitration, as laid out? My question remains: has a full assessment been undertaken with regard to the demands of the services of arbitrators? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will expand on the issues around accessibility to the services.

Amendment 3 would increase the transparency of the arbitrator’s decision, which we have emphasised in the debates in the other place—and I refer to the discussions that were held there.

I regard Amendment 5 as positive and, again, is one that we tabled in the other place. We are concerned that the arbitration fees could be the final cost to push landlords and businesses over the edge. Therefore, we consider that the Secretary of State should ensure that fees are capped. As I said at the outset, this is a time when costs are escalating in so many different areas; we would like the absolute assurance that this area has been considered and controlled.

Can we also be assured that arbitration fees and expenses will be proportionate to the arrears that have caused the dispute? High arbitration costs will have a huge impact on businesses that are doing everything they can to emerge from the pressures that they have been facing. The fact that they need to go to arbitration highlights those pressures. Will the Minister expand on the powers that the Secretary of State will have to make regulations specifying limits on the fees and expenses of arbitrators? What circumstances would lead to the Secretary of State becoming involved, and how will affordability be judged?

With regard to Amendment 7, also in my name, can the Minister say more about what, in his view, constitute viable and unviable businesses? Further, could he expand on what guidance will be provided to arbitrators? Do we know how much flexibility they will have? We all recognise the difficulty of defining what constitutes viability or affordability, but this is such an important area that we need to push further to make sure that we have a clearer definition. That is why we seek more answers in this area and to add more depth to some of our previous discussions.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has tabled Amendment 7A, and I shall listen with interest—sorry, this is a double use of the word—to the cap on interest. I am interested in the interest on the interest. With those points, I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 3, 5 and 7A in my name, and in support of the other amendments in the group, most of which I countersigned and one that I, mysteriously, did not. I am not sure why, because I agree with it completely. It certainly does not have any lower rating because I failed to sign it.

My three amendments are relatively self-explanatory and I shall be brief, but the Minister should not mistake that brevity for the idea that I do not think they are important. I can speak for longer if necessary. Amendment 3 would ensure that arbitration decisions are easily accessible. The basis for that is that, although we do not have long to get through this process, building up a body of case law, or case decision-making, will be important for consistency. What worries me most is complete inconsistency in how these rulings are made. I think we will come to the last point that the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, made about viability, which is where inconsistency will be most a problem. One starting point is to publish fully and accessibly. It would be better if the Government had their own website which scraped them up and put them all in one place so that people would not have to go to various places but, at the very least, they should be easily available somewhere.

Amendment 5, which has some crossover with parts of Amendment 6, requires the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying limits on arbitration fees. The Minister will see that the word “may” is employed, and I am sure he will tell us that this is a legislative trope and that this is how it is done. That is what I expect. Therefore, it will be sufficient if the Minister stands up at the Dispatch Box and says that such regulation will be brought forward at the earliest opportunity and the word “may” remains in the legislation. That would clearly clarify the Government’s intention as to whether this process will happen.

I apologise for the late arrival of Amendment 7A, and I really appreciate the help of the Public Bill Office and others in drafting it so that it is in scope of the Bill. The aim of this amendment is to put a cap on the level of interest that can be baked into the arbitration. This is important because otherwise it will be a lever used in the negotiation. In other words, the landlord will say, “Yes, I’ll do this deal but I expect interest of X or Y”, and clearly that interest level may not be to the advantage of the tenant. Therefore, putting this in removes that lever from the arbitration process. It knowingly and deliberately moves it so that the negotiation is on different ground. The Minister will have noted that I often speak up against secondary legislation—indeed, we have some coming later—but in this case it seems to me that Amendments 5 and 7A are good examples of what secondary legislation was designed for.

I turn briefly to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. Amendment 2 is a sensible measure to ensure that there are sufficient arbitrators. The Minister has said on occasion that there are sufficient, but to some extent he is relying on the word of the organisations concerned. I think it unlikely that they would say, “No, Minister, we can’t do it”. This amendment forces that assurance process a little harder.

Amendment 6 further supports Amendments 5 and 2, in my view. I thank the Minister for his letter. One element of that was to set out the distribution of potential cases. The question I have is whether the availability matches the potential cases. For example, it seems that there is a concentration of potential cases in the south-east, and it seems likely to me that there is probably a concentration of resources for arbitration in the south-east. But what of the towns where the commercial infrastructure has dwindled and where there are not the people who fit the arbitration photofit that the Minister described? How has the Minister ascertained that those towns, cities and villages, which will need arbitration just as much as the bigger places, will have the supply they need? If they do not have the supply locally, on their doorstep, how will that be supplied otherwise? It is not just whether they are sufficient in the country but whether the footprint of those arbitrators matches the expected need.

Then we come to Amendment 7, the one I did not sign, which is strange because I think it is really important. The questions I asked in the debate before Second Reading were, “What is viability?” and “On what forward data is viability assessed?”. One percentage point on expected interest rates, one or two percentage points different on expected inflation and one percentage point up or down on the RPI are the difference between life and death for a business. When the arbitrator sits down at looks at viability, from where is that arbitrator going to get that data and how can we ensure that the data is consistent? The Treasury and the Bank of England often get it wrong when it comes to forecasting data—with all due respect to the Deputy Chairman’s son, who I believe has the job of making some of that data. The point is that we have to use something. Is it up to the arbitrator to decide which projection for RPI, which interest rate data and which inflation data are to be used? This is the difference.

What does viability mean? Is it wiping your face in the colloquial, is it a 5% return on capital employed or what? What do we mean? How do we make sure that businesses are not shut down that in other places are determined viable? This is a difficult question to answer but it is a crucial point, on which the effectiveness of this legislation will turn.

13:30

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I shall make a few general comments about this group, which I certainly relate to. The Minister will doubtless have seen the item I sent in the past day or so from the Property Litigation Association, which I copied to a number of other noble Lords, about its concerns over the geometry of the arbitration process. With regard to the number of arbitrations, a matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the final quantum of those willing to participate will not be known until the Bill and any regulations have been finalised, so willingness to participate may well depend on what is set out in them, what happens about any caps and proportionality relating to costs in the arbitration.

On the costs in the arbitration, my limited experience suggests that the process is capable of being gamed with bad behaviours referred to in an email I had from the property industry and brinkmanship as a predetermined tactic. Given that arbitration is not an inherently cheap process in such circumstances, I wonder what safeguards there are against, for instance, a bully-boy multiple having a go at a series of small landlords, a not unheard of situation. Unfortunately, the British Property Federation, which represents larger landlords, does not have data on what the impact is. I will be very interested to know whether there is any data.

I have concerns about arbitrator discretion. As I understand it, under the provisions of Arbitration Act 1996 the parameters of the arbitrator’s decision-making function are that he has to decide on one or other of the two cases before him. He is not in an inquisitorial position to try to fillet out bits of one and insert them in bits of the other, so when it is a question of what interest rate will be applied, it will be a matter of what is presented to him or her as arbitrator. If there is to be some change in this non-inquisitorial function of arbitrators—I am not suggesting that there could or should be—I can see that, if we are talking about the interests of justice rather than the much vaunted justice of Solomon, we might wish to review what is happening.

On the question of arbitration awards, again, my understanding is that these are normally private, not public, occasions. To the extent that it is proposed that the outcomes of those should be relaxed, I should like to know what revised terms, guidance or direction will follow. That might well have an impact—going back to the first point I made—on those who are already trained arbitrators who might wish to participate in this scheme and may regard the matter as a sufficiently aberrant novelty not to want to participate. I see this matter as a somewhat circular approach and would very much like clarification because I want the Bill to work in practice.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I hope it is order for me to ask if the noble Lord agrees with me that the so-called bully-boy tenants that the Minister described are going about their bullying within the current system? How much more does this system facilitate their ability to bully or otherwise than the current system, given that we have seen high-street multiples hold their landlords to ransom without this legislation? Why would this legislation make it any easier for them to do that?

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord asked a pertinent question and the short answer goes back to my earlier intervention. The impact on business and on premises are two separate things. Those are being coalesced into what has happened in terms of non-payment of rent and a build-up of arrears. All I would say is that it is just another factor that adds into a range of factors that he rightly points out are already in play. It adds to the complexity.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

Perhaps I may address the group on some general points that have been touched on already. I am concerned about whether we in the surveyors’ industry, or wherever the other arbitrators may be sourced from, will be able to provide sufficient numbers of arbitrators. There are mixed opinions on the anticipated number of cases requiring arbitration and there will be a significant difference in their characteristics.

I know that the Bill sets out that the Government will ensure that there will be adequate arbitrators but what will happen if there are not? Arbitrators cannot be trained overnight or sourced quickly. There could be a logjam, which would also spill over into proposals to review the progress of the system.

I turn from Amendment 2 to Amendments 6 and 7. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about cost and proportionate fees for arbitration. One cannot compare an arbitration on 250,000 square feet in Canary Wharf with one on a small shop in the Balls Pond Road. It is a different universe and will require different skills. The sums of money involved are hugely different. The fees must be proportionate and, in particular, must not penalise the small trader or small landlord. It might involve a private landlord with a single shop; we have heard about the multiple traders bullying landlords and the issue would apply there, too. I just wanted to make those two points.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

Again, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their attention to the important issues raised through their amendments. I am grateful for the constructive debate we have had on this, complicated though it is. I have to say to start with that I very much agree with the noble Baroness about the extreme pressure that businesses have been under during this very worrying time. I hope that this Bill will be a small contribution, at least for some, to easing that worry.

Turning first to Amendment 2, I thank the noble Baroness and noble Lords for their consideration of the issue of ensuring adequate arbitrator capacity and administrative support by arbitration bodies. These are key to achieving our aim for disputes to be resolved quickly. As I said before, we have thought it right to adopt a market-based policy approach. This means that approved arbitration bodies, which have expertise in running schemes like this and mounting these things—they will not have run an identical scheme to this one but they will have run similar schemes in the past because it is, in a sense, their core business—will manage their internal capacity processes to perform their functions in the Bill to the required standard.

I believe that this approach of empowering arbitration bodies to manage their internal workflows is the optimal way to ensure that there is enough capacity in the system to deal with the caseload. Not only have my officials been in deep contact with the arbitration bodies about this but I myself held a round table with some of them earlier in the week. I probed them very hard on these matters and, I must say, I got replies that satisfied me as to their ability to cope with this and put the systems in place. In a sense, their very reputation as arbitral bodies depends on them being able to do things like this.

Of course, adopting a more market-based approach does not mean that we are not taking action to engage with the issues of arbitrator capacity and arbitration body resource capability. As I said, we have been engaging extensively and on an ongoing basis with arbitration bodies in relation to these issues, and we will continue to do so. If tweaks have to be made, we will certainly make them.

Let me give a bit more colour to that. The application process for bodies to become approved contains a question on the number of arbitrators listed with the body that would be potentially suitable for the scheme. This is designed to ensure that the arbitration bodies that are approved will be able to list, and therefore appoint, a sufficient number of arbitrators. In any event, simply looking at the number of arbitrators that arbitration bodies can list underrepresents the capacity in the system because it disregards the fact that an arbitrator will be able to take on more than one case at a time.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked, quite properly, about the geographical dispersion of arbitrators. It is very much our intention in the Bill that this is a documents-based process; to that extent, geographical location is less relevant. Also, our belief is that a lot of this will be conducted online by the arbitrators, so the things in this Bill will not necessarily turn on whether there is a local arbitrator on this.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his answer and accept that position, but I think he would also agree that, in order to assess the viability of a particular business correctly, local knowledge is quite helpful. The idea that, at its extreme, you are sat in a village in Herefordshire conversing with someone in Westminster and doing the process, could create confusion.

13:45

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. Of course, in the cases put before the arbitrator, one would expect either the tenant or the landlord themselves to refer to those local issues, but it is of course absolutely open to the arbitrator to call for more information or evidence to deal with that local point. Indeed, it may well be sensible in many cases to appoint an arbitrator who has local knowledge, but I think that the system will adjust and do that as necessary.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, asked whether the outstanding cases—we are down to a number in the low thousands now—are, by definition, likely to be the more difficult ones. Some of them are likely to be more difficult but, frankly, quite a proportion of them will involve people who have just been ignoring this topic, hoping that it will go away and something will turn up. Obviously there is something in the noble Baroness’s point, but there is a variety of factors that may be the reason why people have not yet come forward to settle by themselves. Of course, as I have said previously, it is very much our wish that people settle this themselves when they can.

I was asked about viability—and I will come back to it again later. It is difficult to be overly prescriptive about viability. The Bill deliberately does not define viability specifically because—this comes back to the geographical point from the noble Lord, Lord Fox—arbitrators need to make the assessment in the context of each individual business’s circumstances, especially given the variety of businesses that may use the scheme. It is essential that arbitrators do that, and have the flexibility to do that, to achieve a fair outcome. We will produce more statutory guidance for arbitrators on this, but I have confidence because, in a sense, it is their whole business to be able to arbitrate matters—that is, to weigh up the necessary factors and come to a sensible conclusion.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I appreciate that, and I am pleased that there will be more statutory guidance. It seems to me that the sources of data should not be the topic under discussion during the arbitration process. Can the Minister give us some sense of the basis on which people are making decisions, while at the same time accepting my point that there are local variations in markets and that this element would take out some aspects of what could be, in the words of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, gamed?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. From talking to some of the arbitration bodies, I know that the way they operate is that, when a case like this comes to a body for it to decide on the arbitrator, normally a list of arbitrators is put in front of the parties for them to choose. This is a thoughtful process, as it were. The list of names that the arbitral bodies put before the parties to choose an arbitrator is done rationally. Frankly, one would expect that, if there are locally based arbitrators to do this, they will be the people on the list; the parties may then choose them. I cannot give the noble Lord an absolute guarantee in relation to that but it seems to me that, sensibly, this will be how the system should, and will, operate.

Turning to Amendment 3, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his interest in the publication of awards. We absolutely want to ensure that the public can easily access arbitral awards issued under this scheme. That is why Clause 18 already requires arbitrators to publish an award made, together with the reasons for making it. I am sure that, as this scheme rolls out, if we find that this publicity is not reaching the people it needs to, we will take steps to ensure that it does.

We do not believe it is necessary to require approved arbitration bodies to publish decisions as well, although some may well choose to. In addition, we envisage that as part of its function of overseeing an arbitration, an approved arbitration body would ensure that the award is published as required. Frankly, the convenient way to do that would be on the website of the arbitral body. We are in ongoing discussions with arbitration bodies regarding how to ensure that awards are published in an accessible manner for landlords and tenants who are considering making a reference to arbitration.

I think we are in absolutely the same place on the need for this. I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord that this amendment is not necessary and I request that he does not press it.

Turning to Amendment 5, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and other noble Lords who have spoken for their consideration of the important issue of arbitration fees and the Secretary of State’s power to cap those fees. I assure your Lordships that we also want to ensure that all those who need to access the scheme can do so. That is why, for example, when arbitration bodies seek approval we are specifically asking them what they intend to do to make sure the scheme is affordable for SMEs.

As I have mentioned, the Bill adopts a market-based approach. Approved arbitration bodies, which have expertise in running and costing similar schemes, will have the function of setting fees. It has been made clear that while fees should be set at a level that incentivises arbitrators to act, it is important that the scheme is affordable for all those who need to access it. Capping fees prematurely could reduce the number of arbitrators able to act and in a sense would compound the problem that we are trying to solve. A cap should therefore be imposed only where there is evidence that it is needed. There is presently no such evidence but, if it were to emerge, the Secretary of State is prepared to exercise the power to cap fees.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

Just to add a little substance to the Minister’s point about the proportionality of fees, I think it worth mentioning that in order to present their case to the arbitrator, SMEs in particular will be engaging professionals who charge fees—accountants, surveyors and possibly many others. All this presses upon the delicate P&L of SMEs and, I fear, will have the effect of reducing the numbers that seek arbitration simply because they cannot afford it. That is a supplementary point to the cost of the arbitration. I am just pointing out that there are a lot of ancillary fees.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I understand the point that he is making. Having said that, I think it is right to see how this develops in practice as it moves forward. The Secretary of State has the power to cap fees, but to do that at the beginning could have the perverse effect of worsening the situation by meaning that there will be fewer arbitrators coming forward to do this.

Perhaps I may clarify a point I made earlier about the parties choosing an arbitrator. Formally, of course, the arbitrator is chosen by the arbitral bodies but, from discussion with those bodies, it is clear that they work through with the parties who might be the most appropriate arbitrator to appoint in a certain case.

We do not intend to produce guidelines specifying the factors to be considered in relation to the use of the power to cap fees, but I say categorically that the affordability of the scheme and whether arbitrators are sufficiently incentivised to act will be considered with any other relevant factors, if ever the Secretary of State decides that the power has to be exercised. In conclusion on that amendment, I know that, like us, the noble Baroness and the noble Lords who have spoken are keen to ensure that there are enough arbitrators to administer the scheme, and I therefore ask for Amendment 2 to be withdrawn.

On Amendment 6, which also concerns the Secretary of State’s powers to cap arbitration fees, I am again grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for emphasising the point about the affordability and accessibility of the scheme, should the power to cap fees be exercised. As I have said before, I agree that these are crucial issues. If the Secretary of State were to exercise the power to cap fees, I can reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that the ability of landlords and tenants to access the scheme and the affordability of arbitration fees would of course be considered, along with other relevant factors such as whether arbitrators are sufficiently incentivised to take on cases. I reiterate that the Government will continue to work with approved arbitration bodies to monitor arbitration fees as well as arbitrator capacity. As I said, the Secretary of State will use these delegated powers only if it seems the right thing to do, taking into account the factors at the time.

The Bill gives arbitration bodies that are experienced at costing such schemes the power to set their own fee levels according to market demand. These fees will be publicised, and it will be possible to compare the fees of one arbitral body with those of another. We will absolutely monitor this and make sure that it is balanced with the other considerations to which I have referred. In conclusion, we will continue to work with approved arbitration bodies to monitor arbitration fees, as well as arbitrator capacity. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are reassured, and I request that Amendment 6 not be pressed.

On Amendment 7, the noble Baroness has proposed an amendment that would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to arbitrators on two specific points: how the viability of the tenant’s business should be assessed and over what timescale. I agree that these issues are important, but I hope to persuade her that the amendment is unnecessary.

I hope she would agree that a very large variety of businesses of different sizes in a diverse range of business sectors may use the arbitration process provided in the Bill. In light of that, it is clear that arbitrators need the flexibility to make the assessment of viability against the context in which the individual business operates, considering the different kinds of evidence that may be available. We have to be alive to the danger of being too prescriptive, as a one-size-fits-all approach could lead to unfair arbitration outcomes.

That said, the Government are providing assistance to arbitrators who have to make these assessments. There is a list of factors that the arbitrator must consider when assessing viability in Clause 16. Annexe B of the revised code of practice sets out a detailed non-exhaustive list of the types of evidence that tenants, landlords and arbitrators should consider when assessing the viability of a tenant’s business and the impact of any relief on protected rent debt on the landlord’s solvency.

14:00

We are having ongoing discussions with arbitration bodies and landlord and tenant representatives in relation to producing statutory guidance. It is making good progress, and I can reassure the noble Baroness that the guidance will provide more information about viability. It is for those reasons that I hope that she will agree that the amendment is unnecessary and I request her not to press it.

I now move on to Amendment 7A, which proposes a new clause after Clause 26. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his comments. We must recognise that in addition to rent arrears a tenant may have accumulated during the pandemic, interest may also apply to that debt. The Bill’s core purpose in this area is to protect businesses, which, if they did not have to pay their rent debt in full, would otherwise be viable.

If, despite being granted relief in respect of the rent itself, businesses necessarily had to meet all interest charged on unpaid rent under high contractual rates, they may still be forced under. That would subvert the whole purpose of the Bill. I am sure that this is the point about which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is concerned. That is why I am pleased to reassure him that in the context of the Bill the definition of rent includes interest. Rent is defined in the Bill as the sum for the use of the premises, the service charge payable to the landlord, including payment towards an insurance premium, and any interest on an unpaid amount of those charges. Including interest within the Bill’s definition of rent will allow arbitrators to consider whether any relief should be granted in respect of any interest payable.

I further reassure the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that the Bill’s temporary moratorium provisions protect tenants from actions such as forfeiture or debt claims in relation to unpaid interest on unpaid rent and service charges for the projected periods while arbitration is ongoing. Again, that issue arises because of the inclusion of interest within the definition of rent. Having said that, I note that the Bill seeks to respect the contractual terms of the lease. It is not intended to impose different interest rates, but the arbitrator can look at the interest rate when considering the overall position.

I hope that I have reassured noble Lords on the Bill’s measures regarding interest on protected rent debt. I do not believe that further intervention is necessary and therefore I ask the noble Lord, Lord Fox, not to move his amendment.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

Perhaps I may pick up on a couple of points that the Minister made. It appears that he envisages that the arbitrator will have to use quite a lot of his own discretion. In my way of thinking, that does not fall under the Arbitration Act 1996 and is, in fact, an adjudication process of a rather different nature. He is probably not in a position to answer that right now, and if he would write to me, that would be fine. However, I worry that the way in which the Government see arbitration here is irregular in terms of what most people would understand as the strictures of arbitration.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his intervention. The best answer I can give is that it has been fully discussed with the arbitral bodies whether this is something that they feel the arbitrators they are responsible for can do. I have had complete reassurance on this point, but I will consider it again and write to the noble Earl.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I conclude by thanking the Minister for his very full responses to the concerns raised in this group of amendments. It is fair to say there is still some concern that we will probably pursue at the next stages. I wonder whether the Minister can write to let me know when the statutory guidance, particularly on viability, is likely to be made public. Again, we are in difficulty when we have not had sight of the guidance around the Bill. I do not want to open old wounds again, but it is a recurring theme that we have to deal with. Any clarity on that would be helpful.

I am grateful for the responses but, without going through all the detail again, in taking this work forward it is essential that all the parties have confidence in what is being put before them. The issues raised today are consistency, clarity, transparency and fairness. We must make sure that whatever comes through is deemed to have all those principles or qualities, wherever in the country you happen to be. I admit that I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about local knowledge. Looking at the statistics, it is clear that certain parts of the country have been affected more than others. The stress that those areas are feeling is also not equally shared in relation to some of the big issues we have coming forward.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

It may be helpful if I say that I understand the noble Baroness’s point about guidance. It is very much our intention to publish the draft guidance before Report. I will keep the noble Baroness and noble Lords in touch with that. I understand why that question has been asked.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that intervention. We will look forward with interest to the guidance coming through. It is essential that it comes before Report, if I am allowed to say that. With those comments, and looking forward to further clarification, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Clause 7 agreed.

Clause 8: Functions of approved arbitration bodies

Amendment 3 not moved.

Clause 8 agreed.

Clauses 9 to 13 agreed.

Clause 14: Arbitrator’s award on the matter of relief from payment

Amendment 4

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

4: Clause 14, page 10, line 11, at end insert—
“(8A) An award giving the tenant relief from payment of a protected rent debt is to be taken as altering the effect of the terms of tenancy in relation to the protected rent constituting the debt. (8B) Subsection (8A) means, in particular, that—(a) the tenant is not to be regarded as in breach of covenant by virtue of—(i) non-payment of an amount written off by the award, or(ii) failure to pay an amount payable under the terms of the award before it falls due under those terms;(b) a guarantor of the tenant’s obligation to pay rent, or a former tenant who is otherwise liable for a failure by the tenant to pay rent, is not liable in respect of anything mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) or (ii);(c) a person other than the tenant who is liable for the payment of rent on an indemnity basis is not liable—(i) to pay any unpaid protected rent written off by the award, or(ii) to pay an amount payable under the terms of the award before it falls due under those terms;(d) any amount payable under the terms of the award is to be treated for the purposes of the tenancy as rent payable under the tenancy.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would clarify that an arbitrator’s award of relief from payment of protected rent alters the effect of tenancy terms as to the payment of that rent. This means that any other person liable to pay the protected rent is only liable in relation to payments required under the award.

Amendment 4 agreed.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed.

Clauses 15 to 18 agreed.

Clause 19: Arbitration fees and expenses

Amendments 5 and 6 not moved.

Clause 19 agreed.

Clauses 20 agreed.

Clause 21: Guidance

Amendment 7 not moved.

Clause 21 agreed.

Clauses 22 to 26 agreed.

Amendment 7A not moved.

Clause 27: Power to apply Act in relation to future periods of coronavirus control

Amendment 8

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

8: Clause 27, page 15, line 15, at end insert “adversely”
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would bring the language into line with the corresponding wording in Clause 4.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 8, I am pleased to speak also to Amendments 9 to Clause 27. Both are in my name. Clause 27 provides a power to apply provisions of the Bill again in order to act swiftly in the event of another wave of coronavirus requiring further mandated closures.

Amendment 9 would ensure that the power can be used for mandated closure after the protected period in the Bill, whether before or after the Bill is passed, and whether or not the closure requirement has ended when regulations are made. Amendments 8 and 9 also clarify the meaning of a closure requirement, and more closely align the drafting with corresponding provisions of Clause 4. We have seen that the Covid landscape can change very quickly; Amendments 8 and 9 are therefore to ensure the power is clear and robust for any new waves. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I shall reserve almost all that I shall say about Clause 27 for the next debate—but it is good, if Clause 27 survives, that its language should be consistent with the other parts of the Bill. However, we shall debate its existence later.

Amendment 8 agreed.

Amendment 9

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

9: Clause 27, page 15, line 17, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) A business tenancy is adversely affected by a closure requirement for the purposes of subsection (1) if—(a) the whole or part of a business carried on at or from the premises comprised in the tenancy, or(b) the whole or part of those premises,is of a description subject to a closure requirement imposed at any time after 7 August 2021.(2A) In this section “closure requirement” means a requirement imposed by regulations as a public health response to coronavirus and expressed as an obligation—(a) to close businesses, or parts of businesses, of a specified description, or(b) to close premises, or parts of premises, of a specified description.(2B) In subsection (2A) “coronavirus” means severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).(2C) The power under this section is exercisable whether or not the closure requirement remains in force when the regulations are made.(2D) Subsections (3) to (5) of section 4 apply for purposes of this section as they apply for purposes of section 4.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would clarify the meaning of terms used in Clause 27 and bring its drafting more in line with corresponding provisions of Clause 4. It would also ensure that the Clause 27 power is exercisable in relation to new closure requirements imposed before the Bill is enacted as well as any imposed subsequently.

Amendment 9 agreed.

Debate on whether Clause 27 should be part of the Bill.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, Clause 27 would establish the Henry VIII power, which has drawn the ire of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—so this speech will come as no surprise to the Minister or, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, who heard a slightly different version of it earlier this week. Thereby hangs a tale, because this is a consistent practice of the Government in legislating not just for the present but putting in place measures whereby the Bill cannot just be continued or rolled over but rolled over and substantially changed. In this case, Clause 27 gives Ministers very broad discretion to change how the Bill would work in future periods of coronavirus control. It would allow changes of a kind that would give rise to serious policy issues and this ought not to be a matter for secondary legislation.

Turning to the detail, the Bill applies to business closures that took place in two specific periods—11 March 2020 to 18 July 2021, for businesses in England, and 21 March 2020 to 7 August 2021 for businesses in Wales. However, Clause 27 gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations that allow the Bill to apply to future periods of coronavirus control.

14:15

As the Minister said when speaking to the previous group, we do not know what is coming down the line and there is some element of sense in keeping options open. As we know, regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure. However, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee pointed out and highlighted, there is much more than just the power to provide for the Bill in its existing form to apply to a future problem.

Clause 27(3) allows the regulations to specify provisions

“which are not to apply”,

to provide for provisions to apply “with modifications”, and

“make different provision for different purposes (including different provision for England and for Wales)”.

That changes the nature of the Bill for some uncertain future and means that the regulation could provide for a very different version of the Bill to apply to future periods of coronavirus control. For example—these examples are set out by the DPRRC—the regulations could

“modify the arbitration process (for example, by removing the right to an oral hearing); change the principles that govern the making of arbitration awards; limit the types of award that an arbitrator can make; or limit the availability of awards”.

That is all hypothetical, because we do not know what the Minister might do. There is a practical opposition to this and then there is a principled opposition to it.

The memorandum that accompanies the Bill does not explain why the Bill contains this highly unusual Henry VIII power. It gives very broad discretion to rewrite primary legislation—and we all know what we on this side think of using statutory instruments to rewrite primary legislation. It should not happen. Had the Bill instead contained a power that would allow it to apply to future periods of coronavirus control, coupled with a limited power to make necessary changes to these provisions that currently limit its application periods to 2020 and 2021—in other words, extending its periodicity without changing the nature of the Bill itself—it would not have been an issue for the DPRRC or, frankly, for me.

Accordingly, the DPRRC considers that Clause 27

“contains an inappropriately wide delegation of power and that clause 27(3) in its current form should therefore be removed from the Bill”.

I agree, which is why I am speaking against the clause standing part. The Minister knows that the DPRRC is a serious committee; it is one of the most important committees that we have in your Lordships’ House and it does not make these judgments lightly. I hope that the Minister will understand that, acknowledge this issue and find a way of moving forward, while recognising that Clause 27 in its current form is not an acceptable drafting.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I put my name to this stand part notice in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in the light of the very direct comments we can see in the DPRRC’s report. I am sure that those comments were not made lightly and came from a position of real concern. In my short time in this House, I have picked up that this is a recurring theme and concern. Wherever we have the opportunity to call this out and seek to address the direction of travel, I believe it is our duty to do so.

Having said that, we recognise that it is important to make sure that mechanisms are in place to deal with future potential outbreaks of this pandemic or, indeed, other situations or pandemics that might arise in future. So, in supporting the direction of travel, we ask that the Act be amended by primary legislation to update the arbitration moratorium period. I hope that this would support the DPRRC’s recommendation but ensure that we would be able to extend the period if further restrictions became necessary.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I do not want to make any specific points here, but I echo the very important point made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. As a House, we have been assaulted with these clauses with increasing frequency over the past few years. The Delegated Powers Committee has written an unprompted report criticising the adoption of these powers.

On this Bill, I think it unnecessary because we are dealing with a generic problem. I feel that it could be comfortably addressed if there was a need for further extensions as a result of outbreaks. It could be rolled forward, with amendments as required, in primary legislation. The bulk of the work—the hard work—has been done, so I echo the comments in the previous speeches.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for notification of their intention to oppose the Question that Clause 27 stand part of the Bill, and for highlighting the concerns expressed by the DPRRC. I also listened carefully to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, of course.

As has been stated in both the other House and this House, we have already seen with the omicron variant that the future of the pandemic is uncertain. I believe that the power in Clause 27 is important because it provides the Government with the ability to take a flexible and targeted approach to reapply any or all of the provisions in the Bill to respond to the specific circumstances of any future periods of coronavirus. None of us can predict what will happen. I assure noble Lords that we will of course always exercise this power in accordance with human rights.

Having said that, we are grateful for the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I acknowledge that it makes some important points, which I will consider carefully as we prepare for Report.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am not sure whether I have to withdraw, but I thank the Minister for his comments. We look forward to consulting between Committee and Report. This is important. I cannot speak for the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, but I suspect that we would both consider it necessary to take this forward in the event that the Minister was unable to meet the DPRRC at least most of the way.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 10

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

10: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of the impact of this Act
(1) Four months after the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must publish a review of the impact of this Act and whether it has provided tenants and landlords with an effective process of arbitration.(2) The review in subsection (1) must make an assessment as to whether awards issued under this Act have been given in a fair and consistent manner.(3) The review must also include an assessment as to whether further guidance should be issued as a result of its findings.(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of this Act four months after the Act has been passed.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, we are on the last group— so soon. The amendment

“would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of this Act four months after the Act has been passed.”

That is unusual because, normally, the review process is one year, or five years, or whatever. However, we need to look at Clause 9, which sets a time limit of six months from when the Act is invoked or enacted for people to submit their process. I may have misunderstood —if so, I hope the Minister can put me right—but, if that is the case and that six months is a serious period, we need to assess the progress of this Bill in time for the Minister to roll it forward; the Bill makes provision for that, as I understand it.

We have talked about availability; the Minister has said that he will keep this under review. We have talked about cost; the Minister has said that he will keep this under review. We have talked about regional distribution and how that works; the Minister has said that he will keep this under review. My amendment would create a process that allows this review to happen formally so that your Lordships’ House and the Commons have time to roll this forward if some of the issues that we have discussed are preventing the process going forward.

I want to say one thing on the subject of fees. It comes back to a point that I ask the Minister to continue to review. As the noble Lord—Lord who? Sorry, Lord Thurlow—pointed out, there are a lot of ancillary costs other than the cost of the arbitration process itself; there is the cost of preparing for it, for example. In the end, this can be a loaded gun that the landlord—or the tenant, depending on which way it goes—can use. In other words, “It’s going to cost you this anyway so you might as well give me that”. I do not think that that is the purpose of this Bill. The Bill’s purpose is not to enrich massively dozens of service industries; it is designed to keep commerce rolling. One thing that must be reviewed, and one reason why we are keen to have this four-month review, is the question of whether the cost of fees is causing unfair settlements to occur. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am pleased to put my name to Amendment 10 and stand here to support it.

Constant reference has been made to monitoring the progress of the matters we have discussed, in particular to assessing the impact on all parties in the spirit of fairness and consistency. I believe that such a review would be welcomed by all parties: landlords, tenants and arbitrators. We must ensure that it is fully understood and clear as to whether the system is well understood, is working well and, most of all, is bringing benefit to those areas where it is needed most.

I would not be persuaded if the argument against this was that it would be onerous or too costly. The cost of failure in an area such as this would be far greater than the cost of keeping a close eye on progress and making sure that adjustments can be made if they are deemed appropriate.

With those few comments, I am pleased to support the amendment.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, as a punishment for the noble Lord, Lord Fox, forgetting my name, I must object to his proposal and support the Government. In fact, four months is not enough. As we are likely to launch this legislation as an Act, which I hope is soon, just as the holiday season bears down upon the country, four months will become three months. There will not be enough momentum, precedent or example to really form a worthwhile review after such a short time. I realise that time is short and that we must not waste any time at all; we must give guidance based on results as quickly as we can to the sector, to the arbitrating bodies and to landlords and tenants. But I think the period proposed is too short.

14:30

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise with some sadness, given that this is the last group. I thought that we were getting into the swing of it this afternoon. I should have hoped for further groups in which noble Lords could have demonstrated their expertise.

Amendment 10 proposes a new clause after Clause 27. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his contribution and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. I am also particularly grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.

The Government recognise the importance of appropriately reviewing legislation. I would like to reassure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that the Bill contains appropriate means of monitoring the arbitration system, which is the essence of the Bill, including the awards made by arbitrators. The period under the Bill for making an application for arbitration is six months, and we anticipate that cases should be resolved as soon as possible thereafter.

The Bill already requires approved arbitration bodies to provide a report to the Secretary of State if requested. This can include details of the progress of arbitrations and the awards made. The Bill also requires arbitrators to publish their awards and reasoning. This will provide transparency and help with consistency of approach. If the need arises, the Secretary of State can also issue updated guidance to arbitrators, for example to clarify or add any points that may arise.

It is neither necessary nor beneficial to require publication of a review within just four months of the Bill being passed. That could slow the arbitration process and the prompt resolution that the whole scheme intends, should parties to arbitration and arbitrators await any findings and any new guidance. I appreciate that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have proposed this with good intentions, but I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Turning the telescope around the other way, the reason for specifying four months was the Government specifying six months in Clause 9(2). It seems perverse to have a review that comes after the process has essentially ended. That is the problem. I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow—I shall always remember his name; “That’ll learn you”, as they say where I am from—and I accept his point that three to four months is too short to review this. Therefore, six months is too short for the cut-off point. In a strange way, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, kind of makes my concern clear. If we are to review this, the review needs to come when changes can be made and when significant numbers of potential future cases are better served by the process. Does the Minister agree?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I think I will stick by my previous comments. I believe that not just the interests of landlords and tenants but those of the country are best served by getting on with this. Even though I respect the points that the noble Lord made, I stick with my previous comments.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his comments, which I clearly do not agree with. Everybody’s interests are best served by getting on with something as long as what we are getting on with is a good thing. As someone who climbs and rambles, I know that heading off in the wrong direction and keeping walking for a period before starting to assess the direction in which one is walking is not a good idea. What one does when one sets out on a journey is check and check again, and make changes. This amendment would make sure that any trimming that is required to add direction is done in time for it to have a meaningful effect on the outcome of the largest possible number of cases. Having said that three times in three different ways, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

Clauses 28 and 29 agreed.

Schedule 1 agreed.

Schedule 2: Temporary moratorium on enforcement of protected rent debts

Amendment 11

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

11: Schedule 2, page 19, line 45, at end insert—
“(b) a person other than the tenant who is liable on an indemnity basis for the payment of rent under a business tenancy, and(c) a former tenant who is liable for the payment of rent under a business tenancy.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would secure that references to the tenant include any other persons who are liable under a business tenancy for payment of rent.

Amendment 11 agreed.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed.

Schedule 3: Winding-up and bankruptcy petitions

Amendment 12

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

12: Schedule 3, page 23, line 42, at end insert—
“(b) a person other than the tenant who is liable on an indemnity basis for the payment of rent under a business tenancy, and(c) a former tenant who is liable for the payment of rent under a business tenancy.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would secure that references to the tenant include any other persons who are liable under a business tenancy for payment of rent.

Amendment 12 agreed.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed.

Committee adjourned at 2.37 pm.

House of Lords

Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Thursday 10 February 2022

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Retirement of a Member: Lord Fellowes

Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Announcement

11:06

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement with effect from today of the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.

National Disability Strategy

Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Question

11:07

Asked by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made with implementing their National Disability Strategy.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, good progress is being made. Of more than 100 commitments across government, over 25 have already been delivered in just six months. Among them, the DfE invested over £8 million in 2021-22 on children and young people with complex needs, improving outcomes for these disabled children. The DWP is piloting an adjustment passport supporting disabled people’s transition to employment, and BEIS has launched an online advice hub offering accessible information and advice on employment rights for disabled people. But we understand there is more to do.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

Disabled people in the UK today face an education attainment gap, an employment gap, a pay gap, a public appointments gap, a suboptimal disabled students’ allowance scheme, inaccessible accommodation and inaccessible transport. Will my noble friend agree three things? First, there is no shortage of issues in urgent need of being addressed, as the strategy rightly sets out. Secondly, this will require unflinching commitment from Ministers and officials across Whitehall. Thirdly, there is an urgent need to get on with it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right: there is no shortage of issues. I have mentioned some that are being changed and some that are on their way to changing, but there are a lot more that need to change and many more that are not in the strategy and need to be covered. As the Prime Minister said when he launched the strategy, this is just a “down payment”—this is just the beginning—but we are committed. We are making strides, going forward and delivering.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, last week the Work and Pensions Committee took the highly unusual step of publishing a 2020 research report commissioned by the DWP but, in effect, suppressed by it and ignored by last year’s disability Green Paper. What does the Minister think is the policy implication of that report’s finding that disabled people, totally reliant on benefits, are often unable to meet basic needs, such as food, rent and heating?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am sorry; I have not read that report. The DWP takes a lot of interest in all these reports and it is important that we look at the issues for disabled people, at all times. But we are spending a record £59 billion on benefits this year to support disabled people and people with long-term health conditions. That is 2.5% of GDP. There is another £421 million in the household support fund, so we are putting money into this and supporting disabled people, wherever and whenever we can.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that a country’s civilisation is measured by the care and compassion it gives its disabled and vulnerable citizens—a role all too often left to charities with inadequate resources? Charities such as Action for ME work with inadequate resources to improve the lives of those with this debilitating condition. Will the Government conduct a full review of current ME provision, with a view to establishing a national strategy for ME in the UK?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord that charities do a lot in this country, but when the Government work with charities and others in the third sector, we can do more. I will certainly take the question on ME provision to colleagues in the Department of Health to discuss this. I do not know whether they are willing to do a review, but I will ask them to get in touch with the noble Lord.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Lib Dems. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, wants to speak virtually.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]]

My Lords, disabled people look forward to being consulted properly on the National Disability Strategy; in particular, on more accessible housing for rent, fair benefit assessments and reliable social care. Does the Minister agree and please will she give us timescales?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, across government, we are talking continually to stakeholders and charities for disabled people, nationally and locally. There is a commitment across government to continue to do that. On housing, DLUHC—as it is now called—has committed that 10% of the 180,000 homes being built in the affordable homes programme will be for supported housing and I think this is extremely important. We are doing all we can. We know that consulting everybody who needs a voice is difficult, but we will continue to do that across government.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I ask my noble friend how pupils with special educational needs are being supported.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for her question. It is important that we continue to support children with special educational needs, because, if they get the right education, they can go on to living fulfilling lives. The DfE has put a further £2.6 billion over the next three years into delivering new places and improving existing provision for young people with special educational needs. The DfE is also contributing £9.3 million in the next financial year to train educational psychologists—very important in this field. High-needs funding for children and young people with complex needs is increasing by £1 billion to £9.1 billion in the next financial year.

[The Lord Bishop of Chichester]

My Lords, last year, the Chief Medical Officer’s annual report focused on health in coastal communities, noting higher levels of deprivation and disability in these locations. What will the Government do to tackle the levels of multiple need and disability in these communities?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot say specifically, but I will certainly write with the answer. Across the whole of this country, there are areas where disability is more of an issue than in others. That is why we have this cross-government strategy, and why we will deliver on it.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, wishes to speak virtually, and I think this is a good time to call her.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that some people with a disability just need a little personal help and assistance to get up and to go to bed, so that, once up, they can reach their full potential? Can the Government make it easier for this help to be forthcoming?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. I know that on a very personal level because I have an adult daughter who is disabled and needs exactly that kind of care. I think it is important that we look to how we can do that better, if that is what disabled people in consultations say is necessary. I will take that back to the department.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Government commit to increase the funding for research into conditions such as ME, which has already been referred to, so that children and adults across the UK can receive the right care and support that they so urgently and desperately need?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think that, working with the charitable sector, exactly as I said to the noble Lord previously, that is something we should do. I will take that back to my noble friend in the Department of Health.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, we have heard a great deal from the Minister—and we are all glad to—about money spent on initiatives. What are the Government going to do to bring them together as a coherent whole? At the moment, we suffer from a multitude of schemes and good intentions that do not co-ordinate. A coherent whole is the primary thrust of any successful strategy here.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, that is exactly what this strategy is all about. That is why, across Government, we have ministerial disability champions meeting quarterly with the Minister for Disabled People, in order to have a co-ordinated strategy for this country to improve the lives of disabled people.

Children: Online Protection

Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Question

11:17

Asked by

[Baroness Merron]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the new Information Commissioner about the importance of protecting children online.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to protecting children online and are in regular contact with the Information Commissioner, whom we welcome to his post. The forthcoming online safety Bill will provide children with world-leading protections from harmful content and activity online, and the Information Commissioner will continue to enforce the safeguards for children’s privacy in the children’s code.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer and welcome the recent announcement that the draft online safety Bill will better protect young people from online pornography. Regrettably, the Government have dragged their feet on this, meaning that more young people have been exposed to extreme content than was necessary. A new regime will take several years to come on stream. What consideration is the Minister giving to interim measures to better protect children, including, but not limited to, instructing the Information Commissioner to apply the age-appropriate design code to hosts of adult content?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s support for the newer measures the Government announced this week. Of course, we will be responding in full to the work of the Joint Committee and the DCMS Select Committee in the other place. We have looked at the draft online safety Bill to respond to the further recommendations and suggestions they have made. However, we have not been inactive in the meantime. In June last year, for example, we published safety by design guidance and a one-stop shop on child online safety, which provided guidance on steps platforms can take to design safer services and protect children. Last July, we published our Online Media Literacy Strategy, which supports the empowerment of users. So we are taking steps, as well as introducing the Bill, which will be coming soon.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I also welcome the new commissioner, John Edwards, to his role, and congratulate the Government on this week’s announcement that the online safety Bill will include statutory guidance for privacy-preserving age assurance. Given that, to date, many of the eye-catching changes brought about by the age-appropriate design code, such as safe search and dismantling direct messaging by unknown adults to children, have been rolled out globally, are the Government working with the new commissioner to encourage the UK’s allies and trading partners to adopt the code in other jurisdictions to better enforce its provisions? Does he agree that regulatory alignment between the online safety Bill and the code is essential if we are to keep children safe?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am very grateful for the noble Baroness’s welcome for the new measures. There is agreement at an international level and within the UK that much more needs to be done to create a safer online environment for children, and the noble Baroness has played a significant part in fostering that agreement. The Information Commissioner has an international team responsible for engaging with data protection and information regulators all over the world. He is himself a former privacy commissioner in New Zealand, while his predecessor worked in this area in Canada, and I think that is to the great benefit of international dialogue. The international team works to ensure that the ICO’s regulatory and other priorities are appropriately reflected in international discussions. Through its work in organisations such as the OECD, the Council of Europe and the Global Privacy Assembly, the ICO also influences work on the interoperability of global data protection regimes.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on introducing the regulatory sandbox.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome—

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, there is plenty of time. One of your Lordships can give way to the other.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, as chairman of the Proof of Age Standards Scheme board, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in congratulating the Government on the work they are doing in this area. Can the Minister give us an update on the sandbox trial of technologies and an idea of when those trials might reach a conclusion, so that they can be rolled out? This is something that, for proof of age for buying alcohol and children’s online activities, will be an immensely positive step forward and one that is very welcome.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her support for the new measures. I am afraid I do not have details of the specific trial to which she refers, so, if she will permit me, I will write to her with those details.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the Government seem to be bringing out their response in tantalising instalments. I can only speculate why, but, as a former member of the Joint Committee alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I can only welcome what the Government have already announced. There are crucial elements to the control of commercial pornography: first, the age-assurance measures that were set out in the noble Baroness’s Private Member’s Bill, and, secondly, the age-appropriate design code protections for young children. There is, as yet, no indication that the Government have actually accepted the alignment of the age-appropriate design code with the online safety Bill regarding the commercial pornography elements. That is an important factor if we are really going to make sure that young people are safe.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I hope we can continue to please the noble Lord and others with the work that we are doing in this area. The age-appropriate design code will play a key role in delivering protections for children ahead of and alongside the new online safety regulatory framework. We have aligned our approach with the code, which requires companies to apply its standards to protecting children’s personal data where they have assessed that children are likely to access their services. That will provide consistency for companies that may be required to comply with both the code and the provisions of the online safety Bill.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this Bill, perhaps more than any other, demands post-legislative as well as pre-legislative scrutiny? It is terribly important to see that things are really working. I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I certainly agree that the Bill has already benefited from the work of the Joint Committee and all the representations that have been made about it by parliamentarians in both Houses. One of the pre-legislative recommendations was for post-legislative attention, and we will respond to that and all the other recommendations ahead of publishing the Bill.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, I think the Minister should beware TS Eliot’s:

“Woe unto me when all men praise me!”


There is clearly a direction of travel which is welcomed in the House. Could he assure me that the British Board of Film Classification will be involved in ensuring that this safety legislation is watertight? It has long experience in age verification and other matters that would make it invaluable to whoever will take responsibility for these matters.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. We have been speaking to the BBFC and others. The questions which we are addressing through the online safety Bill are not entirely new. The questions of access and how we can protect children, in particular, are ones that we have addressed in relation to other media. We are learning from those who have experience as we look to future regulation.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not bring any praise. Age assurance can be driven through easily by a coach and horses. The noble Baroness asked what further work is being done on facial recognition and the other factors which are now developing with technology. When we reflect on the great difficulties we have with so many areas on security, was it not a disaster, in 2011, when the then newly elected coalition Government threw away the Labour Government’s work on identification of individuals, when this is needed in so many areas? What are the Government doing to look back, reflect on that, change direction and produce proper self-identification for everyone, not just children?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am not sure that a national identity card scheme would be the right approach in this area. In the decade since, technology has moved on in a number of ways to enable both age verification and age assurance in a lighter touch way that affords the protections we need for children online while respecting the privacy of legitimate adult users.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s announcement acknowledges that porn gives children unrealistic expectations about sex and relationships and encourages misogyny. However, it fails to mention the addictiveness of its consumption up the age range. Are the Government concerned about the effect on adults’ relationships, as is revealed by this worrying research? The Bill is urgently needed, and I join others in asking, because the Bill is urgently needed, when it will be introduced.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank my noble friend, too, for his welcome. He raises points about the further potential harms of pornography and, although the strongest protections in the Bill are for children, it looks at the harms that online content can pose to people of all ages. On the time- table: it remains our intention to introduce the updated Bill in the coming weeks and to respond formally to the Joint Committee and to the Select Committee in the other place at the same time as the Bill is published.

Covid-19: Lateral Flow Tests

Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Question

11:28

Asked by

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many COVID-19 lateral flow tests are awaiting approval under the Medical Devices (Coronavirus Test Device Approvals (Amendment) Regulations 2021; how many have been approved; and how many that already hold Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency approval will fall if not re-approved by the extended deadline of 28 February.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall)]

As of 3 February 2022, 87 lateral flow devices were in the CTDA approval process, and none have been approved—

[A noble Lord]

Speak up.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I am sorry, this is a 2.45 am hang- over. Lateral flow devices from 20 CTDA applications are currently included on the temporary protocol. If we interpret the phrase “Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency approval” as CE marking, we are currently considering proposals to ensure the continued supply and usage of tests beyond 28 February and will announce plans once a decision has been confirmed.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response despite the late hour of last night’s debate. I am concerned that the information I have is that there are still 200 tests waiting, 46 have been assessed and validated at Porton Down, and the process is not well-aligned with the MHRA processes. What is being done to bring those processes back in line? What is being done to bring forward applications from devices that provide a differential diagnosis between Covid and influenza? These are already being used in Europe, but I understand that none are available in the UK because they have been held up in the validation process.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I should perhaps start with some background on this and why we have reached the situation we are in. Her Majesty’s Government began the large-scale procurement of Covid-19 test kits at the height of the pandemic. To ensure supplies for the universal testing offer, Porton Down assesses tests offered to Government. It found that three-quarters of those offered failed to meet their stated performance in their instructions for use. For most testing technology, the manufacturer needed only to do self-assessment to meet the CE marking rules, but clearly, when they were tested, they were not meeting those standards. We considered that the current standard was insufficient and did not keep bad tests off the market. That is why we had a public consultation in April that showed strong support for a more rigorous regime. In terms of avoiding a cliff edge, as it were, if they have not been validated, we are looking at solutions.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, reports indicate that the Government are seeking to implement testing only in health care settings and for the most vulnerable people, along with stopping the requirement to self-isolate if a person has Covid-19, in the next two weeks. What evidence from SAGE and NERVTAG do the Government have to show that at present, this is in the best public health interest of the country?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I am not aware of any announcements or measures that accord with the noble Lord’s question.

[Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)]

My Lords, for some time I have been testing every day and use testing kits that I acquire online and pay for from the same manufacturers that the Government use to distribute free tests. Why are those tests not registerable through the Government website, so that you can get an email confirmation of a negative test? The QR codes are not recognised if you buy tests yourself.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I must say to my noble friend that I was not aware of that, and therefore I will have to go back to the department. If he could write to me about that, I will be happy to respond.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister say how many British companies are caught in this and waiting for approval? Can he also say how many billions of pounds we have spent importing these tests from China?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I will try my best to answer the questions, but if I do not, I hope the noble Lord will accept a written response. Some 25% of approved devices are from UK manufacturers, but it is important, as a fair and neutral regulator of market access that all applicants are treated equally. The Government are working to review applications for devices submitted by the process. At the same time, while we want to make sure that the British tests are of the highest standard, we are determined to harness the power of the UK’s leading diagnostic industry. We will continue to be enormously engaged with UK manufacturers and trade bodies to support a thriving domestic diagnostic industry.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I wish the Minister a speedy recovery. He has been working late hours and deserves our total sympathy. I wonder, however, whether he could give us some indication of how much was wasted in preferential procurement of this kind of equipment. How much has all the equipment that is now out of date and has to be destroyed cost? I do not blame him for any of it, because he has relatively recently become a Minister, but will we have some kind of inquiry into preferential procurement and the wastage of all this equipment?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

It is interesting that an earlier question asked if we are looking at British-based manufacturers. We want to be very careful that there is no preference, it is all based on merit and we have tests that meet all standards. To answer the question about the wider procurement process, there was a Question last week when I gave some detailed answers about the write-down of some of the value. We bought some of that equipment at the height of the market when people were desperately trying to buy equipment all over the world. Ships were being redirected en route when people thought they were receiving goods. That is why we paid the market price at the time.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, there is still the occasionally ping heard. Can the Minister bring us up to date with how many people are still employed on Test and Trace and what the total cost has been so far?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

That is a valid question and if the noble Baroness could write to me, I will respond.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, in addition to the need to improve the approval process for lateral flow tests, when can we expect to see a real plan for living well with Covid? Will this include proper provision for better sick pay, improved testing and those who are clinically vulnerable.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

Clearly, the noble Baroness raises a number of important considerations for when we come up with a living with Covid strategy. At the moment, we are consulting on it to make sure that we have an appropriate strategy that covers many of the issues she referred to.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, am I right in thinking that my noble friend said that 25% of the testing kits are made in this country? Does it follow from that that the other 75% are made in China, or is there a wider field of manufacture?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

As far as I am aware, they are from other countries; I do not know the exact figure for China. The suppliers that have been chosen have passed our protocol and meet the requirements of the procurement framework. It is really important that we have a rigorous standard, given that we found that many of the tests did not meet the instructions for use, as they claimed. We want a testing regime that is not only one of the best in the world but also very well trusted, especially if we are looking at using home testing for future diagnostics to identify more diseases and viruses, rather than waiting for people to go into hospital.

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, given the Prime Minister’s announcement that in a couple of weeks, people will no longer have to isolate, what can the Minister say to those who have been shielding for all this time and who are now terrified that if they go out of their door, they will meet someone who is positive, so they will have to stay at home? Are their lives not as valuable as those of the rest of us?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate that you always have to get the right balance. There will be those who do not want to stay at home and who want to return as quickly as possible, and you also have to consider the wider economy. We cannot shut down the whole economy for a small section of people. What we have to do is make sure that they are looked after. I have recently seen a submission about what we are going to do in future with people who are now termed clinically vulnerable and extremely vulnerable, and we will be publishing that in detail. In fact, just recently I approved a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Government learn the lesson of Covid and look at supply chains and the need to stockpile equipment in the future?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I could bore for Britain on supply chains. It was one of the academic subjects that I looked at, globally. As we become more economically efficient and supply chains become more efficient, they become more brittle. We saw how the shops were affected by lockdown and by China, and much of the manufacturing, as part of that supply chain, started in China. Companies across the world have looked at different options. Some have looked at sourcing elsewhere; some have looked at stockpiling; some have looked at reshoring; but all those options add considerable costs to the supply chain. Some have even looked at intermediary solutions, including warehousing in cheaper countries and then bringing the goods in closer. I am very happy to go on at length to the noble Lord at any time, but not now.

Medical Abortion Pills

Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Question

11:38

Asked by

[Baroness Sugg]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to extend the availability of the home use of pills for early medical abortion.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)]

We are carefully considering all evidence submitted to the Government’s public consultation on whether to make permanent the temporary measure allowing for home use of pills for early medical abortion. We will publish our response as soon as possible and before the end of March to give providers sufficient time to plan for whatever the outcome is.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. The consultation on this finished 12 months ago and the current regulations expire next month. Abortion providers have made it clear that without telemedicine services, we will face enormous demand pressures resulting in longer waiting times, later abortions and even women having to resort to unsafe abortions. It would be very helpful to understand the delay to a permanent decision and why it cannot be reached when the evidence is so clear.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

One of the reasons, as my noble friend would acknowledge, is that we had lockdown and then we were let out, and then we had more restrictions. We did not want to announce something and then have to go back on it. All I would say is that it was always intended to be a temporary measure. We have looked at the responses to the consultation in order to reach a decision, and we will be issuing our considerations later.

[Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to declare my interest as chair of the trustees of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Following up on the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, I find it very strange that the Government are taking so long to make this decision. The temporary service that was provided for early medical abortions comes to an end at the end of next month. The evidence is clear. According to a survey of 50,000 women published in a leading medical journal, telemedical abortion is

“effective, safe, acceptable and improves access to care.”

In these circumstances, what is holding up the Government’s decision? It seems obvious that it would be welcomed by doctors involved in the treatment of such women, and by the women who need this care.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

As I am sure noble Lords will acknowledge, this is a very sensitive area. Initially, it was meant to be a temporary-only service. If we do decide to respect its temporariness, an extension will probably be made to ensure that the clinics and other medical services have time to adapt before returning to the position before the pandemic.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of a recent study, based on FOI requests to NHS trusts, which revealed that in 2020 more than 10,000 women who took at least one abortion pill at home, provided by the NHS, needed hospital treatment for side-effects? That is equivalent to more than one in 17 women, or 20 women a day, needing hospital treatment. Does the Minister agree that such reports indicate a serious and disturbing lack of understanding by its advocates of the dangers of the telemedical abortion policy?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving the other side of the debate; it shows what a difficult subject this is. Sometimes people dig up the wider debate, but I think we have to be very careful and focus on the issue. This was a service offered to women, and the initial consultation was in person, but we made temporary provision, rightly, during the pandemic to ensure that women were treated with dignity, while appreciating that it had to be done at distance. We have looked at whether this should continue to be temporary or become permanent, and we are still weighing up this difficult decision. I think the debate today shows that there are a number of views, and it is not as simple as either side proposes.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, the telemedical abortion service has been evaluated separately in England, Wales and Scotland and it has proven to be world leading. The US Food and Drug Administration has recently approved telemedical abortion care in America on the basis of the UK studies. Does the Minister agree that women’s access to safe, high-quality abortion care in the UK should be non-negotiable?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I do not think that is in question. There is no doubt that women should have access to abortion services and to the right advice, but as the noble Baroness who spoke earlier indicated, there are some concerns and risks. We have to consider all the factors. Of course, it would be wonderful for some people if it was made easier and was available online; others say you must be prepared for the risks. Whatever happens, if something goes wrong, I am sure that the noble Baroness and others would be back here questioning why we did what we did.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and of the Academy of Medical Sciences. Have the Government considered the evidence from Imperial College London—indeed, from my own laboratory—showing that most human embryos are born with abnormalities which are potentially lethal, and they usually die? They are then aborted by the same process which this Bill causes, only at a later stage of pregnancy. This method of natural abortion, which occurs all the time, is mostly without symptoms to the woman: they do not even know that they have lost an embryo. It is safe and does not cause the medical complications which invariably happen with a late abortion, which a woman is then committed to. What are the Government going to do about this, firmly, to make it avoidable in future?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for informing me about that—it is something I have learned today. I will take it back and consider what he has said. To return to the Question, when we made this measure it was clear that it was supposed to be temporary. Will have consulted and will look at the consultation and decide what we will do. If we do go back to what it was like before, we will make sure there is a sufficient period to ensure there is no cliff edge.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lord, to return to the original Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, may I respectfully suggest that the Minister is trying to defend the indefensible? The evidence is quite clear about the safety of the procedure. We can have a debate about alternative views, but the evidence from other countries which routinely use this method of treatment is clear: it is safe and more convenient for women, and it should be implemented immediately. Will he take this back to the Department of Health?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I think the noble Lord is being slightly unfair. It is a complicated issue and not as simple as people make out. The noble Baroness said that we should be aware of dangers. These are the issues that we considered during the consultation. Whatever we do, we will be criticised— rightly so—but we want to make sure that when we make a decision it is the right decision.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, RCOG data has shown that complications related to abortion have decreased since the telemedicine for EMA service was introduced. The college has warned that failure to make it permanent could lead to more women accessing an illegal abortion. NICE has recommended the service as best practice, so does not its future urgently need to be secured by making it permanent? It does not have to be temporary.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

As I said, we are looking at the consultation carefully and considering all views. If we made it permanent, there would be lots of criticism, which we have to be aware of and make sure that we have the answers for. If we continue to expect it to be temporary, there will be plenty of criticism. Whatever we do, we will be damned, but we are going to try our best.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, talked about convenience of telemedicine for women. The fact is that women from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are three times as likely to need an abortion as those from the wealthiest backgrounds. It is not just an issue of convenience. It is a question of whether childcare is available and affordable; whether someone has a zero-hours contract job and cannot afford to take time off; or whether someone does not have access to public transport. This is very much an equalities issue—that abortion is available to every woman who needs it.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I agree with that statement but it is not what the Question is about. The Question is about a temporary measure that was put in place and whether it should be made permanent. It involves the consideration of difficult issues, including ethical issues, and we want to make sure that when we come to a decision, it is justified.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

Does the Minister accept that, as this provision is medically supported by all the experts, this decision is a political one that discriminates against women and is not based on sound medical evidence?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

First, I remind the noble Baroness that we have not made a decision. I completely refute the allegation. It is unfair but I expect that, whatever we do on this issue, people will refer to the wider debate and accusations will fly around. I accept that, but we will concentrate on looking at the data and the consultation and make a decision.

Learning Disabilities (Access to Services) Bill [HL]

1st reading
Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

First Reading

11:49

A Bill to make provision for a review of access for people with learning disabilities to healthcare and other services, to make provision for a review of the provision of learning disability services across Government, to make associated provision for the reform of such services, to provide a statutory code of practice on the public sector equality duty for public bodies for matters relating to learning disabilities and for connected purposes.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interest as a vice-president of Mencap.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Wigley, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

North Sea Oil and Gas

Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Wednesday 9 February.

“There will continue to be ongoing demand for oil and gas over the coming years. It is a clear choice between a transition that secures our energy, protects jobs and leads to innovation in new technologies like carbon capture and hydrogen, and an extinction for our energy sector, as I think the honourable Lady proposes. Flicking a switch and turning off our domestic source of gas overnight would put energy security, British jobs and industries at risk and we would be even more dependent on foreign imports. The way we produce oil and gas is cleaner than in many jurisdictions, so it would be illogical to import them at further expense to Britain and our planet.

The fields referred to in these reports are already licensed, some dating back to as early as 1970, and are now going through the usual regulatory processes. All proposals are subject to a rigorous scrutiny process prior to consent, as opposed to licensing, by our expert regulators, including an environmental impact assessment and a public consultation. No decisions have been taken by the regulators, so it would be inappropriate to comment further on that process. However, to be clear, continued support for Britain’s oil and gas sector is not just compatible with our net-zero goals; it is essential if we are to meet the ambitious targets we set for ourselves while protecting jobs and livelihoods.

As announced last year, and forming part of the North Sea transition deal, we will introduce a climate compatibility checkpoint for any new licences to ensure that any future licensing rounds remain consistent with our goals. Meanwhile, we continue to make progress on developing new nuclear, which I think the honourable Lady also opposes, and renewables that will power our future. Today, we have announced that we are ramping up our options for our flagship renewable scheme, contracts for difference, establishing new industries, boosting investment and creating jobs in our former industrial heartlands.”

11:50

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, the energy price crisis is a fossil fuel crisis. This means we must go further and faster on zero-carbon energy, energy efficiency and clean energy storage. In their White Paper, the Government said that they would

“develop the existing checkpoints in our processes before proceeding with future licensing rounds.”

How is what the Government said yesterday consistent with that approach? Further, can the Minister explain whether he believes that any licensing decisions must be compatible with keeping warming to 1.5 degrees and how the Government will make that assessment?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. She is right: we intend to introduce a climate-compatibility checkpoint for all new licences, which will be used to assess whether any future licensing rounds remain in keeping with our climate goals.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in Q3 of last year, which is the last time for which data is available, exports from the UK North Sea were double those of the period in the previous year. At the same time, Ministers were reported to be scrabbling to Kuwait to secure extra supplies of LNG to the UK to meet the energy crisis. This is very counterintuitive. Does the Minister agree that shipping expensive—in environmental terms—LNG from the Middle East, rather than using gas that comes from our doorstep, is not sensible or good for the planet? Will he tell your Lordships’ House how the Government will turn that around and make better use of the resources we already have and are already producing?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

First, I agree with the noble Lord that it is much more sensible to use our own domestic resources, rather than LNG. However, the reality is that, throughout this period, the UK remains a net importer of oil and gas. Therefore, it makes no sense to pursue the operations he is proposing. We do not produce enough of our own domestic energy. We are expanding our renewable capacity massively and have the largest developments of offshore wind in the world. We need to go further and faster, but it makes no sense to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world and cut off imports and exports.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, in running down North Sea oil and gas for climate purposes, is it not vital to ensure that supply does not shrink so fast that it falls behind continued demand, with the resulting price explosions in all the fossil fuels that we see now, which are causing such misery and crisis?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I totally agree with my noble friend. I know he speaks with great authority on this matter as a former Energy Minister. As I just said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, we remain a net importer. Production from the North Sea is sadly declining. We need to make sure that we ramp up our renewable capacity as quickly as possible, but it remains a fact that we will still have demand for oil and gas during the transition. If we have that demand, it makes sense to produce this domestically rather than importing it from other, unstable, parts of the world.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether decisions on these matters are within the total competence of the United Kingdom Government? Is there any way that the Scottish Government could thwart them?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

No, these decisions remain a matter for the UK Government. The noble Lord makes a good point. It is sad to see the reaction of the Scottish Government in not being totally supportive of the tremendously successful North Sea oil and gas fields which, as well as employing thousands of people in good, well-paid jobs, also contribute large amounts to the UK taxpayer.

[Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell me whether the Government are reviewing their position on fracking?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

No, we are not reviewing our position, is the short answer to my noble friend’s question. Let me explain this issue: there is currently a moratorium on fracking because of the tremendous seismological damage that it caused. We remain open to reviewing this if it can be demonstrated that fracking can go ahead in a safe and responsible manner, but nobody should run away with the idea that this could be a solution to our problems. The quantities produced would be relatively small and they would not impact on the current high prices and it would be many years, perhaps even decades, before significant quantities could come on stream, even if we overcame all of the environmental problems and gave the go-ahead tomorrow.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, a previous question was about why we are exporting something that we desperately need in the UK. People cannot understand why we are still exporting, when there is a shortage and we are having difficulties getting supplies in the UK. Can the Minister explain it?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Yes, I realise that it is counterintuitive but supplies are required in different parts of the country. We are importing and exporting. The corollary to the noble Lord’s question would be to say that we seal the borders, disconnect all our interconnection pipelines and import no further LNG—and we would not have enough supplies to satisfy our domestic demand in such circumstances. We import and we export, but the point remains that we are a net importer of both oil and gas supplies.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

Bearing in mind that the four Governments previous to this one have ignored the role of nuclear—that appears to be the situation—can my noble friend assure this House that we will now see what useful role nuclear can play in giving us, in a sense, a defensive supply?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Indeed, my noble friend makes a very good point. The House will shortly have the opportunity to consider the Nuclear Financing Bill, which has its Second Reading on 21 February, I believe.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

The Government agree—do they not?—that the actions of President Putin show that the whole of the West needs to increase the priority it gives to energy security. New nuclear must be part of that, but it should cause us to rethink some of the finely calibrated decisions on fossil fuels here in the UK if it can mean extra security for our western partners.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord makes an excellent point. Regarding energy, first, it takes many years to develop new sources—sometimes even tens of years—and, secondly, we need diversity of supply. Yes, we need continued oil and gas production during the transition period; yes, we need to encourage new renewables; and, yes, we need to encourage nuclear. We need a diverse mixture of supplies.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, can I press the Minister? People have stressed the importance of reliable domestic energy sources. In response to the question on fracking, the Minister raised all sorts of problems of safety and so on. These are contentious but could it be possible for the Government to lift the moratorium or at least commit themselves to looking again at this important issue? Nobody suggests that shale gas will solve all the problems but in an energy crisis that is really serious, we want to look at nuclear, fracking and all reliable energy sources. Fossil fuels should not be demonised so that we move away from them, and safety fears should not be used to stop what would be sensible for the British economy.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes some good points. As I said in response to my noble friend earlier, we keep these matters under review. If it can be demonstrated that fracking can be carried out in a safe and reliable manner, then of course we need to consider it. But we have to be realistic about this: it is not going to be the answer to our short-term difficulties. In preparation for this, I was chatting to some specialist officials and they said it could easily be 10 years—even if we got rid of the moratorium tomorrow and overcame all the environmental problems that were caused—before any fracked gas came on stream.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, the oil companies, including BP and Shell, have been making record profits. Yet for their North Sea operations they have had a negative tax rate for several years. Given the current circumstances, might the Government re-examine the fiscal regime in the North Sea? Can the Minister tell the House?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Of course, I leave all tax decisions to the Chancellor. But, again, I think that the noble Baroness is wrong and looking at this too simplistically. First, most of the profits announced by the companies in recent days were made in worldwide operations; a very small percentage came from British domestic production. Secondly, it was only last year or the year before that they were making net losses; I do not remember the noble Baroness or others saying that we should give them taxpayer support. Thirdly, where do these profits go? First, they pay more corporation tax and, secondly, they go to UK pension funds, shareholders and people who need that income to help them though the crisis. There are no easy answers; the idea that there is some magical, mythical pot of money that we can just extract from to solve all of our problems is not true, I am afraid.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2022

Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

12:01

Moved by

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 January be approved.

Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 February.

Motion agreed.

Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

12:01

Moved by

[Baroness Penn]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 January be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 8 February.

Motion agreed.

Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

12:02

Moved by

[Lord Kamall]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 December 2021 be approved.

Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 February.

Motion agreed.

Representation of the People (Proxy Vote Applications) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

12:02

Moved by

[Lord True]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 January be approved.

Relevant documents: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 8 February.

Motion agreed.

Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

12:03

Moved by

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 January be approved.

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 February.

Motion agreed.

Waste and Agriculture (Legislative Functions) Regulations 2022

Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

12:04

Moved by

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 January be approved.

Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 February.

Motion agreed.

Organ Tourism and Cadavers on Display Bill [HL]

Order of Commitment discharged
Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Order of Commitment

12:04

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the order of commitment be discharged.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been tabled to the Bill and no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

Motion agreed.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Committee (5th Day)

12:05

Relevant documents: 7th and 9th Reports from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, 11th Report from the Constitution Committee, 18th and 19th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee

Clause 57: Provision of information relating to being a victim of slavery or human trafficking

Amendment 151D

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

151D: Clause 57, page 61, line 31, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may not serve a slavery or trafficking information notice on any person who— (a) is aged 17 or younger, or(b) was aged 17 or younger at the time they were a potential victim of slavery or human trafficking on the basis of which they have made a protection claim or human rights claim.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would exclude children from the provisions of Clause 57.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register as a research fellow at University of Nottingham, in the Rights Lab, and as a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation. I hope that can be noted as we go through this part of the Bill, rather than me saying it at the beginning of every group of amendments, if that is in order.

Part 5 of the Bill deals with modern slavery. There are a couple of things to say before I turn to my amendment and some of the other amendments in this large group. It is sad to see modern slavery in what is essentially an immigration, refugee and asylum Bill. That is to be regretted. Notwithstanding that, it is in this Bill, and we have a large number of amendments and important issues to discuss.

I regret much of what is in Part 5, given that one of the iconic achievements of any Government over the last few decades was that of the Conservative Government under David Cameron, with Theresa May as Home Secretary and then as Prime Minister: the Modern Slavery Act. As a Labour politician, I was pleased and proud to support it. It was a fantastic achievement, and a model for the rest of the world, and indeed the rest of the world has followed it. That should be set down as a marker in this place. I hope that the right honourable Member for Maidenhead, the former Prime Minister, hears loud and clear what I think the vast majority, if not all, of this House believe with respect to the Modern Slavery Act.

I find it therefore somewhat difficult to understand why the Government have come forward with a number of proposals which undermine some of the basic principles upon which that Modern Slavery Act was established. Clauses 57 and 58 put victims on a deadline to give information or evidence and penalise them for late disclosure. They take no account of the realities faced by victims of slavery and trafficking, and will make it harder for victims to access support.

Like much in this Bill, the starting point for the Minister must be why the Government are doing this. What evidence is there of a real problem here that needs urgently to be tackled? There is none—I cannot find it. I can see no explanation from the Government for why they are doing this, other than a belief that part of the modern slavery legislation—the national referral mechanism, or whatever you want to call it—is being abused and misused by those who seek asylum or get into this country using the devious route of claiming to be victims of slavery when they are not. Where is the evidence for that? Where are the statistical points that the Government can use to show us the scale of the problem, to say that this is what is happening, and that this is why we must deal with it?

This goes to the heart of the problem. I do not know what the politically correct term is, but the Government have set up this target to justify legislation and legislative change on the basis of attacking some mythical statistical problem—“We have to do this to deal with that”. The first thing to know is what has caused the Government to believe there is such a problem that they need this to deal with it. From memory, about one-third of referrals to the national referral mechanism are from British citizens, so you start to wonder.

Those are the parameters of the debate. I will return to many of those themes as we go through Part 5.

It is very unclear what problem the Government are trying to fix with these changes and what is gained by the clauses, because the cost of them is stark. We look forward to the Minister justifying that at the beginning of his remarks. What assessment have the Government done on the impact that these provisions, if passed unamended, will have on the national referral mechanism?

Clause 57(3) suggests that a slavery and trafficking notice will be used even before a reasonable grounds decision can be made, putting up barriers before a victim has taken even their first step into the national referral mechanism. Can the Minister explain if that is the case? Is that the purpose of Clause 57(3)?

At Second Reading, the former Prime Minister Theresa May said:

“It takes time for many victims of modern slavery to identify as a victim, let alone be able to put forward the evidence to establish that.”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/7/21; col. 728.]


This is not from some wild, middle-class liberal or a person who is blinded by the belief that refugees, asylum seekers and those fleeing modern slavery can do no wrong; the former Prime Minister of this country outlined one of the deficiencies that many in this Chamber believe is a real problem. Does the Minister agree or disagree with the former Prime Minister? If he agrees, why does he not do something about it? If he disagrees, I think we will come to our own conclusions. How is that reflected in measures that create artificial deadlines, which have not been needed until now, and that penalise victims for not meeting them?

Also on Clauses 57 and 58, it is not clear, and I ask the Minister to explain, whether slavery or trafficking information notices will be served on all asylum applicants or on only some. It would be discriminatory if they were served on some asylum seekers or certain categories of asylum seeker—for example, the people the Government expect to be captured by these clauses. That point was made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Clause 58 provides that decision-makers must take account of a missed deadline and that it must damage a victim’s credibility, unless they have “good reasons” for providing information late. Why is the national referral mechanism all of a sudden not trusted to make decisions and give weight to these matters?

Amendment 154, which I have tabled with the noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar and Lady Hollins, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, seeks to find out what the Government mean by “good reasons” in Clause 58(2)—

“unless there are good reasons”.

No doubt the Minister will say that this will be clarified in guidance, that we can look forward to regulations and that, when the clause talks about “good reasons”, we can trust them, and that of course “good reasons” means good reasons”, et cetera. We will get into the nightmare situation in which nobody has a real clue what it means. That is why I am grateful to other noble Lords in the Committee for supporting that amendment.

I particularly highlight paragraph (g) in Amendment 154, which deals with the

“fear of repercussions from people who exercise control over the person”.

Time and again, you meet victims who are terrified of the system, and therefore will not co-operate, or victims who are coerced into activity that all of us sat in here—in the glory of the wonderful House of Lords Chamber—would think wrong, but which completely misunderstands the coercion that victims or survivors in those circumstances face. It is not the real world to believe that they cannot be coerced into doing activity that we might sometimes think is not right. It is not the real world; it is not their life; it is not the reality of their situation. I say to every noble Lord here, if you were told that unless you co-operated fully with individuals you were entrapped by, your parents, grandparents or family in the country from which you originated would be attacked or worse, I wonder how many of us would say, “Don’t worry, I won’t do it”. It is just not the real world.

12:15

How can the Minister reassure this House that all of that will be taken into account by those who make the decisions? We have trusted them to make these decisions up to now. We believe that the decision-makers will understand this without necessarily laying out in primary legislation that, if information is provided late, there must be good reasons for it or the information should automatically be disregarded.

So, as I say, the Government have so far given no clarity on what “good reason” will be; let us hope that the Minister can give us some clarity today. How many people entering the NRM who are victims of slavery and trafficking do the Government expect not to have a good reason if they struggle to present their evidence in a neat file by a specified date? Who knows?

Amendments 151D and 152 again seek to understand why the Government do not disapply any of this automatically from children who are captured by exactly the same provisions as adults. Time and again in our law—it does not matter which aspect; we have some very distinguished Members who are experienced in this—it is a fundamental principle that we treat children differently from adults, that we understand that children have different developmental needs, and that we do not expect a child to act in the same way as an adult. That is a fundamental principle of the legislative system on which this country’s democracy has been based for ever—or since for ever, or whatever the term is; your Lordships understand the point I am making—yet this part of the Bill drives a coach and horses through that principle and takes no account of children at all. That cannot be right. Even if we think that late disclosure and some of these things are right for adults, it cannot be right for children. The Minister will say that the decision-makers will of course take this into account. He will say, “Of course that won’t happen. If we have a 12 or 13 year-old child before us, nobody can expect them to be treated in the same way as an adult”. So put it on the face of the Bill so that there is no doubt about it—so that those who take decisions can have no doubt about what our intention is. Can the Minister explain why children, who made up 47% of those referred to the NRM last year, should be subject to the same provisions in this Bill as adults?

In closing, let me say that the Government’s own statutory guidance says:

“Child victims may find it particularly hard to disclose and are often reluctant to give information.”

I could not agree more with the Government in their own guidance—why do they not follow it themselves? Clauses 57 and 58 are a serious undermining of the current provisions in an Act we are all proud of, and the Government should think again.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in the register. I was much involved with the Modern Slavery Act and the review led by the noble Lord, Lord Field, so I feel I have some knowledge of this. I do not know whether the Minister, who is not at the Home Office, realises the extent to which all the non-governmental organisations of this country—including the Salvation Army, which works for the Government on modern slavery, together with the anti- slavery commissioner—deplore this part of the Bill without exception. This Minister may not know that but, goodness me, the Home Office does.

I am very concerned about children, but I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, so I propose to refer specifically to Clause 58. Again, because he is not at the Home Office, the Minister may not have read the statutory guidance on the Modern Slavery Act. I have it with me—it was published this month. I wonder whether the Home Office’s right hand does not know what the left hand is doing, because the requirement to be timely in providing the information needed is totally contrary to the entire work set out by the statutory guidance.

I do not want to bore the Committee, but I must refer very briefly to one or two points so the Minister can know. Under “Introduction to modern slavery”, the guidance says:

“It is important for professionals to understand the specific vulnerability of victims of modern slavery and utilise practical, trauma-informed methods of working which are based upon fundamental principles of dignity, compassion and respect.”


For goodness’ sake, does Clause 58 have anything to do with that? The guidance sets out how you should deal with identifying potential victims of modern slavery. In particular, paragraph 3.6 on page 35 states:

“In practice it is not easy to identify a potential victim—there are many different physical and psychological elements to be considered as detailed below. For a variety of reasons, potential victims of modern slavery may also … be reluctant to come forward with information … not recognise themselves as having been trafficked or enslaved”


and, most importantly, may

“tell their stories with obvious errors and/or omissions”.

One important aspect—which the Home Office on the one hand states in the statutory guidance and yet is clearly totally unaware of in relation to the Bill—is that a lot of victims who come to this country are given a story by the traffickers. That is the story they tell first, and it will not be the truth. Just think what will happen to them consequently under Clause 58. They will be treated as liars who have not given accurate information. Through the NRM—imperfect though it is—they will probably have got to reasonable grounds, but then they will get this appalling notice and find themselves not treated as victims. This is totally contrary to the Modern Slavery Act. It is totally contrary to the best of all that has happened in this country, in the House of Commons and this House, which will be ruined by this part of the Bill.

Having worked in this sector since about 2006, I am absolutely appalled that the Government think they are doing a good thing in putting this part of the Bill forward. For goodness’ sake, will they for once listen and get rid of it?

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 153 and 155 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Before I do so, I fully associate myself with the powerful words of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. The only correction I will make to the noble Lord is that the Modern Slavery Act originated in the coalition Government, and we had a Liberal Democrat Minister in the Home Office in the person of my noble friend Lady Featherstone, who was here earlier.

Group 1 covers amendments and proposed deletions to very objectionable clauses, as we have heard. Clause 57 shifts the onus from the state to the potential victim to identify themselves and possess the relevant expertise to know what information is relevant to a slavery and human-trafficking determination. There is no provision for the specified date for supplying the information to be reasonable, or for whether and how an extension could be granted. Can the Minister say whether there will be guidance on these matters? As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked, will notices be served on all asylum applicants or only on some? There would be potential for these notices to be discriminatory, in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, if they were served only on certain categories of people. What criteria will be used if only certain people will get these notices?

There is no clarity or guidance as to what might be considered good reasons for why information has arrived late. Vulnerable or traumatised victims might take time opening up; they might well be unfamiliar with the legal process, or they might not realise that a particular detail was relevant until later. There at least needs to be guidance on what constitutes good reasons to improve legal clarity and certainty, otherwise Amendment 154 from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, needs to be accepted.

On Clause 58, the Court of Appeal in a 2008 case said that the word “potentially” should be included if the decision-making authority were required to assess late supply of information as damaging to credibility. Hence, Amendment 153, inspired by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, changes “must take account” to “may take account” as potentially damaging to credibility. Amendment 155 would amend Clause 58 so that it does not apply to child victims or victims of sexual exploitation, similar to Amendments 151D and 152 from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.

The bottom line is that Clauses 57 and 58 should not be in this Bill and, as has been said, Part 5 as a whole should not be in this Bill. They are arguably in breach of both the European Convention on Human Rights and the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.

I think that my noble friend Lord Paddick will refer to the worries of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner—we are all very conscious of this matter. Indeed, Dame Sara Thornton has a comment article in the Times today, to which I shall refer in a later group. She has been very active, not least in briefing the JCHR and outlining her extreme worries, and we have heard from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. The whole of the sector believes that this tightening up, to the disadvantage of vulnerable and traumatised victims of human trafficking and slavery, is wholly inappropriate.

[Lord Henley (Con)]

My Lords, I have not yet spoken on this Bill—I missed the Second Reading for reasons beyond my control—but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which issued a number of reports on the Bill. I want to refer to the 11th report, covering Part 5, where we unanimously, as a committee, came forward with a number of recommendations. I hope that the Committee will bear with me—bearing in mind the strictures of the Chief Whip a day or two ago—if I make a brief intervention on this to support those amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. The noble Baroness was speaking to Amendments 153 and 155, but all of us are also, to some extent, in support of all the other amendments, and take note of everything that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said.

I offer my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his very kind words about all the work my right honourable friend Theresa May has done on modern slavery over the years. I served briefly in the Home Office, as I have served briefly in a great many departments, before I was moved on—as happens so often. I know from when I served with my right honourable friend just how seriously she took this issue—she treated it as important even before she became Home Secretary. She was a member of the shadow Cabinet in the run-up to the 2001 election and then continued with this work beyond. She will be grateful for everything the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has said. If I do not pass it on to her, I am sure she will read Hansard.

12:30

I do not want to make a very long intervention as I missed out on most parts of the Bill and was not here until 3.20 am on Wednesday morning. I will just underline a fact raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—and on which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will no doubt come in again—that this was considered very carefully from a human rights point of view by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is both cross-party and a committee of both Houses. We looked at this in great detail, took evidence on a great deal and produced a report with a number of recommendations. Therefore, I offer my support to Amendments 153 and 155. They will not be pressed today, but I hope that we will get, at least, a good response from the Minister and that he will consider coming forward with some alternative before the next stage.

[The Lord Bishop of Bristol]

My Lords, I have added my name to those noble Lords who oppose Clause 57 standing part. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and others, who have already so eloquently made the case about concerns for this part of the Bill. As the Church of England’s lead bishop for modern slavery, I have had the privilege to sit with and listen to many charities, agencies and survivors of modern slavery, so it seemed appropriate to bring those conversations from the grass roots to your Lordships’ attention.

This is a clause which resonates deeply with the Church. Through the Clewer initiative, the Church of England is working across England with many partners to raise awareness of all aspects of modern slavery and to help support victims and vulnerable groups. This includes running training courses on county lines, producing apps which allow for reporting of suspected modern slavery cases in car washes and the farming sector, and working with many churches to raise up and equip volunteers in this area.

Only yesterday, around the corner from here, the General Synod of the Church of England discussed a motion on modern slavery and trafficking brought forward by members of the diocese of Durham and supported by members of the diocese of Southwark. This was prompted by the practical experience and difficulty in supporting a victim who had come to their attention. The synod voted to acknowledge the leading role which Her Majesty’s Government have played internationally in challenging slavery. Voting unanimously, the synod asked Her Majesty’s Government to introduce legislation to ensure proper provision for the ongoing support and protection of trafficked minors, and for this to be enshrined in law.

As a Church, and like many faith groups—I pay tribute, as others have, to the Salvation Army and the Medaille Trust—we wholeheartedly welcomed the Modern Slavery Act 2015. It has been such a crucial piece of legislation, and one we have long harboured hopes of seeing expanded and enhanced to do more to protect victims, to prevent future cases and to work with businesses and civil society in a collective effort against this appalling evil. Accordingly, it is so disheartening to see Clause 57—and others to which we will come to in due course—in this Bill. From so many charities and faith-based initiatives, and from survivors themselves, I have heard a torrent of the same message: “This is not going to work. It is going to exclude legitimate victims. It will result in fewer people being identified. It will result in fewer people being supported.”

The numbers who remain trapped and incapable of receiving the support that they need outstrip by an enormous margin the relatively small numbers seeking to abuse the system. Clause 57 seeks to eliminate abuse. I humbly suggest that we have a system in place that is already able to identify and refuse support to those who are not truly eligible. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, alluded to this. What Clause 57 will do, in order to cut down on a relatively small level of abuse, is add to the barriers that are put before victims.

I want to end by emphasising that point. Those who work on the ground are desperate to do more to work with the Government to identify victims and eliminate modern slavery. This is the time to be accelerating and increasing our engagement to break the business models that exploit and enslave human beings. It is not the time to be making it harder for victims to come forward. I hope that we can rethink and remove this clause.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for introducing these amendments with such clarity and conviction and to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for her passionate plea for the Government to have another look at these clauses. What I am going to say will repeat the points that they have made, but I think that they are worth repeating because they are serious concerns.

One of the main concerns of all those working with victims of modern slavery—NGOs, police, prosecutors—is Clause 58. It is humbling when you talk to those working on the front line to hear of the compassionate way in which they work with victims of trafficking. I have listened carefully to their concerns and I think that the Government should pay heed. I urge the Minister to talk properly to those working on the front line with these people.

Clause 58 will have the devastating effect of damaging the credibility of victims of modern slavery if they fail to disclose their trafficking experience within a set framework. The UK, as we have heard, is seen as a world leader in tackling modern slavery. We need to build on that experience and the achievements gained over the last few years, not undermine victims by starting from a position of disbelieving them and then requiring them to prove otherwise. That would be regressive. It would breach the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking by putting the onus on victims to identify themselves and removing the state’s obligation to identify victims and investigate trafficking offences.

Clause 58 will deter victims from coming forward, reduce the number of successful prosecutions and police investigations and leave the most dangerous criminals free. It is for this reason that the police and prosecutors have voiced their concerns. The Government’s own NRM supporter, the Salvation Army, which has held the victim care contract for over 10 years, has expressed grave concerns. Most worryingly, children are not exempt. That will be a significant setback for the achievements of the Modern Slavery Act and children protection legislation. As we have heard, the conflation of immigration with victims of trafficking, particularly children, is beyond comprehension. This clause goes against experience, undermines a legal principle and displays a complete lack of understanding. As we have heard, both Sara Thornton, the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, and Theresa May—rightly, compliments have been paid to her—have expressed concerns. This clause should not stand part of the Bill.

To tackle the problems that Clause 58 is designed to resolve requires operational, not legislative, change. The clause goes against the Government’s own aims. It will push victims away from support, hamper efforts to track down trafficking gangs and likely reduce numbers of prosecutions. What is needed is the improvement of the NRM, reductions of delays in decision-making and better funding. I am not clear how a set framework will help with abuse and I am not aware of any data published by the Government to illustrate misuse of the NRM. Perhaps the Minister can explain how a set framework will help and what evidence, if any, the Government have about the level of abuse.

The Government argue that this measure will help to ensure that victims are identified as early as possible to receive support. Speeding up the process is in everyone's interest, but I am not sure how the clause will help. The probing amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which I support, would add a list of good reasons for late disclosure to Clause 58. There needs to be clarity in the legislation that the notice period can be extended. It needs to be stated clearly that there are circumstances when a late disclosure should not be penalised.

With regard to children, will the Government publish a children’s rights assessment and draft guidance before Report? As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, we need that in the Bill.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the opposition to both Clauses 57 and 58. The Minister will understand by now the view that has been expressed, with no exceptions, that the Bill does not advance our world-leading work to support victims of modern slavery and is a retrograde step. No one would say that all the work that is needed has been done. There is a lot of learning going on and it has to go on, but the Bill does not advance that work at all.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked why the Government are doing this. This had not occurred to me before but maybe it is the pervasive culture of disbelief raising its head again. I am glad that the debate on Part 5 was opened by the noble Lord and the noble and learned Baroness, both of whom I feel I should refer to as my noble friends; I have been hanging on to their coattails in this area.

I am going to say very much less than I could today. Part 5 merits—if that is not too positive a term—a whole day’s debate at least, but I, too, am aware of the pressures on time. Being constrained in the scrutiny of a Bill to which so many of us are opposed, pretty much across the board, is particularly concerning. I must investigate the procedures for moving to leave out a whole part of a Bill on Report. This is so shaming because this part of the Bill affects people whom we are so keen to support and protect.

Reference has been made to late information. I am going to give a couple of examples, both of which cases I have some particular knowledge of, not because I think that they will come as news to most people in the Chamber but because there are many of our colleagues who are not aware of all this. I refer to two victims. The first is a learning-disabled man who worked on a farm for decades in the most appalling conditions, conditions that are difficult to read about. He was not able to leave but did not even think he ought to try to do so because he did not know where else he might go. He even referred to his falling-down insanitary shed as home. The second is a young woman, who, in speaking to the police, could not get beyond the fact that in her head the perpetrator was her boyfriend. Sadly, those are both common situations. I will leave the matter there.

12:45

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I refer to a non-financial interest: I am a trustee of the Arise Foundation, which works for victims of human trafficking and modern-day slavery. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I too wish Part 5 was not in this Bill at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, told the Committee, it is odd to put issues concerning immigration and human trafficking together in this way, as though they are part and parcel of the same problem. They are not.

That is why my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss was right to be as passionate as she was and, reinforced by the remarks of my noble friend Lady Prashar, to say that the Government really need to recast and rethink this all over again. My noble and learned friend referred to the Salvation Army which is, as she said, the advisers to the Government on this issue. It says:

“The Salvation Army has held the Government’s Modern Slavery Victim Care and Co-ordination contract for over 10 years. In that time, we have supported 15,000 survivors of modern slavery. We, along with our colleagues across the anti-trafficking sector”—


all of us have seen reams of representations from pretty much every representative group that there is—

“would urge you to … ensure that vulnerable survivors of trafficking and slavery are not prevented from accessing the support they deserve.”

It is hard to see how many of the measures that we are debating very briefly in the context of such an important set of provisions will enable that to happen. I do not want to pre-empt what I am going to say on my Amendment 156A on the national referral mechanism, but simply to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said in his curtain-raising remarks for the whole of this section.

My noble friend Lord Hylton, and I, along with my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, worked with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who was in another place at that time and doing incredibly energetic hard-working things to get the 2015 legislation on to the statute book. We all paid tribute then, as that came through on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, through both Houses, to the right honourable Theresa May, for what Lady May did in working for this legislation to happen. However the history books judge her period as Prime Minister or Home Secretary, I believe this is her most lasting legacy and something she should be enormously proud of. That is why I too quoted her remarks at Second Reading, and I was glad to hear the noble Lord refer to them again today. I urge the Minister to go back to what she had to see had to say about this.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol and I go back a long way. She was once a curate in what was then the Liverpool Mossley Hill constituency, so, we also have something in common with the Minister. Bristol and Liverpool have something in common: their knowledge of the transatlantic slave trade. In 2015, we saw this as a way of cleansing some of the past: not breaking down monuments or trying to cancel history but doing something positive. My worry is that what we are doing now is undoing so much of that good work. What are these imaginary windmills that, like Don Quixote, we are being encouraged to tilt at today? There is no data. Where is the justification? Knowing that the Minister has a forensic brain, I hope he will take us through what the justifications are for what we have here. Why, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, are we disregarding what our own Joint Committee on Human Rights has said to us?

I have one more thing to say, and that is on Amendment 154, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker: Proposed new subsection (2A)(g) refers to

“fear of repercussions from people who exercise control over the person”.

Certainly, through the work that I have been privileged to be involved in with the Arise Foundation, we have seen many examples of that. That children are being treated no differently in this legislation beggars belief.

Amendment 154 also refers to victims of trauma. If someone has been traumatised, then of course the statements they will make, even possibly the untruths they feel they have to tell to prevent being sent back where they came, should not be held against them. This section also deals with people with diminished capacity, and I was struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said in one of her examples about people with diminished responsibility. We have all seen cases like that. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, who we will hear from later on, has done more than anyone in your Lordships’ House to draw to our attention the need to do more to help vulnerable people in that situation.

These amendments are good, but you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. I wish this was not in this Bill at all. There is still time for the Government to recast. Given the concerns that have been echoed, not just here, but right across the sector, I hope that the Minister will take this back to the Home Office, take it back to the Government, and say let us think again.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I am also a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I am grateful to my colleagues on that committee who have spoken. The committee looked very hard at this issue, and we came up with very clear recommendations. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for having set the scene for this debate.

I want to be brief but will repeat the question put by my noble friend Lord Coaker. Why are the Government doing this? On some aspects of the Bill with which I am in profound disagreement, at least I understand why the Government, in their own way, want to do what they are doing—it might be quite wrong, but I understand it. In this case, I do not even know what the case is for the Government to do this. Are they trying it on so that they can withdraw the provision and seem to be meeting the wishes of the House? There is no justification at all.

Most Members of this House will be aware that people who have been in slavery, trafficked or traumatised by sexual exploitation, often find it very difficult to talk about their ordeal. They often want to keep quiet, because the experience has been so horrifying for them that they cannot put their own case to officialdom here. I have seen this over the years when I have met people. In fairness, some of them want to talk a great deal to get their experience out of their system, but many others do not. It is a natural human reaction; one does not want to talk about one’s awful experiences; one wants almost to shut them out. Then one finds there is a need to reveal information.

I was talking to some NGOs which were working with people who had crossed the Sahara. They said that the majority of women who fled for safety across the Sahara had been raped on the journey. Many of them do not want to talk about that. It is not within their tradition and culture to talk about it, yet here we are demanding that they should.

I find it very depressing that we have to debate this at all. I urge the Minister to say that the Government will think again. That is the only way out, otherwise, when we get to Report, it will not be a nice day for the Government, because we are bound by the comments we are making today, and by having a sense of integrity in putting forward the case for people who have been in slavery or traumatised to have a reasonable chance of being dealt with. The Government should not be trying to find ways to keep them out. I ask them to think again.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments; I have signed only one, simply because I am not terribly well organised. I agree with the comments about Theresa May, whom I admired for many things, including the fact that she gave me a colleague in this House; it was six long, lonely years without my noble friend Lady Bennett.

An Urgent Question was left off the Order Paper today. It was put in the other place by the honourable Member for Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas, who is the Green Party MP. Either me or my noble friend Lady Bennett would have liked to have contributed to that debate. I should like an explanation from the Government as to why it was left off the Order Paper. I am a great believer in cock-up rather than conspiracy, but I would like an explanation at some point and have chosen to put it into Hansard for that reason.

I return to this “shaming” part of the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, described it. Every time I think we have got to the worst part, I turn a page and it is even worse. The combined resources of this House will make this a difficult section for the Government to push through.

Noble Lords have spoken from a depth of understanding and experience that I probably do not have. Evidence is evidence wherever it is uncovered, and delays in producing evidence might be considered when weighing up the quality and value of such evidence. Essentially, the Government are making this an absolute requirement, which is unfair and unjust.

We are talking about the incredibly distressing circumstances of many of these people. We have already had examples. They are victims of slavery. They have possibly been groomed, tricked or kidnapped and brought to the UK. Instead of helping them or demonstrating even an ounce of compassion, this Government are treating them all as if they have done something wrong. I urge the Government to rethink this. I would hate to see another 14 votes go against the Government in one evening but, on the other hand, that was great fun and we could probably do it again.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly, because I was not intending to speak. I want first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Coaker on the way he introduced these amendments. I support the amendments and particularly what has been said in relation to victims of modern slavery.

I think I can rely on history to reinforce this, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, to listen carefully. History shows us that when each of us experiences appalling discrimination and persecution, that pain and that shame are buried for decades. To revisit that sometimes takes us to an area that we never want to be in again. Therefore, with that thought, I urge the Government to think again.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in his intention to oppose Clauses 57 and 58 standing part of the Bill. I have a speech but I am not going to deliver it, because the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in particular, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and many others have been so powerfully put that they are simply irrefutable. I have been in the House now for 15 years or so and have heard thousands of good arguments as to why a Government should not do this, that or the other, but I have never heard such powerful arguments for a part of a Bill to be removed.

I am going to ask something that I have never asked before. Will the Minister invite the Home Secretary to come to a meeting with representatives from all sides of this House to hear the arguments first-hand from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and others? It is not good enough for our poor Minister, if I may refer to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in that way, to hear all these arguments, to go back and say whatever he is going to say—I do not know what it will be—and then to have to come back here and say, “Sorry, guys, it’s all going to stay there”. That is not good enough. The case is so incredibly powerful. The wickedness of Part 5 should not be allowed to go by without the Home Secretary facing noble Lords directly.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, I notice that my noble friend Lady Hollins cannot be in her place today, but I urge the Minister to consider her wealth of medical, psychological and therapeutic experience, as she has her name to Amendment 154. That will strengthen the case for him taking back this group.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton, wrote to the Home Secretary about this Bill on 7 September last year. I should declare an interest: I know Sara Thornton very well. We were police officers together and spent six months together on a residential course. She is extremely able and fiercely independent, and, in my opinion, the best commissioner the Metropolitan Police never had.

In relation to trafficking information notices, Sara said in her letter that trauma suffered by victims of modern slavery can result in delayed disclosure, difficulty recalling facts or symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. She went on to say that evidence from the Salvation Army pointed to the fact that many victims initially recall their experiences with contradictions and inconsistencies, and it can often take a considerable time before they feel comfortable to disclose fully what has happened to them, as many other noble Lords have said. Her conclusion was that to place a deadline on when they can submit evidence and to interpret late compliance as damaging to credibility fails to take account of the severe trauma suffered by victims. For those reasons alone, Clauses 57 and 58 should not stand part of the Bill.

13:00

My Amendment 172A, generously supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, replaces the existing Clause 65 legal aid provision. The existing clause allows additional legal aid in connection with a national referral mechanism referral if the subject is already in receipt of legal aid for an existing asylum or immigration claim. The proposed new clause would provide stand-alone legal aid to provide pre-national referral mechanism advice to any victim of modern slavery, whether they are already in receipt of legal aid or not. Clause 66 would not be required if Amendment 172A were accepted.

We support all the amendments in this group, but we hope that they will not be necessary because we hope that Clauses 57 and 58 will no longer be part of the Bill by the end of Report in this House. I was wondering why the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, the Home Office Minister, was not in her place today to deal with these issues. I would like to think that it is because she could not face standing up and supporting these parts of the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I have listened to all of them with care. With respect to everyone else, I say that I always listen with care to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, in particular, as I think he will appreciate from our exchanges on other matters. I got the impression that voices in support of the Government were a little thin on the ground on this matter, but I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford is not doing these amendments not out of any personal reluctance; it was decided some weeks ago that my assistance on the Bill would include this group, and that is why I am doing it. It is fair to say that she has gone above and beyond on the Bill and others.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, just on that point, I was clearly not suggesting that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, did not deserve a break from her duties; she has been committed to this throughout. I said that I hoped that these parts of the Bill might be the reason, but I was obviously implying that they clearly were not.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I think it might be best if we just moved on from that because, respectfully, I am not sure that it was a particularly good comment in the first place.

The measures in the Bill build on the landmark—it really was landmark—legislation brought in by the future Prime Minister, Theresa May, in 2015. On this occasion, I am very happy to acknowledge that it was brought in by the coalition Government; it was a joint effort. Notwithstanding that I am not a Home Office Minister, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, reminded me on a number of occasions, I can say that the Home Secretary is committed to bringing forward further legislation in the area of modern slavery as a priority, to ensure an efficient and resilient system in tackling modern slavery. That department, which is obviously not mine, will look to introduce those measures when parliamentary time allows.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

In that case, why do we not wait for that legislation and do it comprehensively, rather than put into law things to which there is so much opposition? Does the Minister also accept that, in 2015, a number of really positive changes were made to that Act in your Lordships’ House because the Government chose to listen?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

There were two questions there. Why now? I was going to come to that, because that is a point that the noble Lord made earlier. As to listening to your Lordships’ House, the Government always listen to what goes on in this House. They always listen but they may not always agree.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I think with some sympathy, referred to me as the “poor Minister” responsible for responding. I am poor in the sense that you do not take this job for the money, I can say that. I also cannot promise the meeting with the Home Secretary. What I can promise is that I will pass on what the noble Baroness said to the relevant people in the home department.

We have heard a number of arguments for removing Clauses 57 and 58 from the Bill. I will deal with those first, because I think that is really the head-on charge that has been put to me. I suggest that these clauses are important provisions to encourage disclosure of information at the earliest stage so we can identify victims and provide them with direct support as early as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, moving the amendment, asked why the provisions were necessary and quoted the former Prime Minister asking why artificial deadlines were required. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol suggested that the clauses would stop people coming forward. Far from deterring victims, these clauses are intended to encourage genuine victims to come forward and get protection and support on the earliest possible occasion.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but how does he see what he is saying as compatible with the statutory guidance issued only this month?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Of course we have considered the statutory guidance, not least because it comes from the Home Department and was issued this month. With great respect, we do think they are compatible. We do not see any contradiction between the aims of the statutory guidance under the 2015 Act and what we are proposing here. As to who will be served with a notice, individuals who will be served with a slavery and trafficking information notice are those who have previously made a human rights or protection claim in respect of removal or refusal of entry. They are therefore potentially subject to removal action.

The noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Alton, asked: why are we doing this? I think that was then refined to: why are we doing this now? That is pretty simple to state. As I have said, we want to identify genuine victims of modern slavery or trafficking within this group as quickly as possible so that they receive both protection from removal and access to the support given during the recovery period.

This may not be the best form of providing statistics, but the number of those detained in the UK following immigration offences in 2020 was obviously affected by the pandemic. However, even prior to this there was a clear rise in the number of referrals to the national referral mechanism, from 3%—501—in 2017 to 16%—1,767—in 2019. In 2019, only a small proportion, about 1%, of individuals detained in the UK following an immigration offence who made a national referral mechanism referral were returned. We published a report last year providing data on some of the concerns we are seeking to address through the Bill and outlining pressures in the system and where referrals of modern slavery are coming from. The reports are available on the government website but, to make it simpler, I will write to the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Alton, with a copy available, with the URL so they can find the relevant material.

I suggest it is right that we reduce the opportunities to misuse the system for immigration purposes and improve the efficiency of the processes, targeting resources where they are most needed to help victims recover from exploitation and rebuild their lives. We want to address concerns that some referrals are being made intentionally late in the process, to frustrate immigration action and divert resources away from legitimate claimants. It is not right that foreign criminals subject to deportation and those who have absolutely no right to remain in the UK can seek to delay their removal by waiting until the very last minute before raising new claims or putting in endless evidence or information relating to their status in the UK. So what Clauses 57 and 58 seek to do is on the one hand ensure that vulnerable victims receive appropriate and timely support, and on the other hand enable investigative and enforcement activities to take place with reasonable dispatch.

I should point out—this did not feature too much in the debate—that Clauses 57 and 58 are underpinned by access to legal advice, under Clauses 65 and 66, to help individuals understand whether they are a potential victim of modern slavery or human trafficking, and to support a referral into the national referral mechanism if that is the case. As I have said before, a constant theme, particularly in modern slavery measures within the Bill, is that decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, taking a needs-based approach. Therefore, turning to Amendments 151D, 152 and 155, it would be wrong in principle to create a carve-out for any one group of individuals, and to create a two-tiered system based either on age or the type of exploitation claimed. I am sure that this is not the intention of those moving the amendments, but, in the real world, which at some point we must think about, it could incentivise individuals to provide falsified information regarding their age or to put forward falsified referrals regarding timings or type of exploitation to delay removal action.

It was interesting, in the course of what was, with respect, a very forceful speech supporting his amendment, that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to 12 or 13 year-olds and not, for example, to a 17 and a half year-old. When it comes to children, if we define children as all under-18s, the approach that we want to take is to ensure that decision-makers have the flexibility to approach the claims of all children of different ages and maturities appropriately, and therefore I suggest that a blanket approach is inappropriate.

By introducing a statutory requirement to provide information before a specified date—we are not talking about neat files here—we hope to identify those victims at the earliest opportunity. Clauses 57 and 58 have safeguards built in, and I assure in particular the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that, when considering the “reasonable grounds” decision, the decision-makers in the SCA are already well experienced in taking into account the specific vulnerabilities of children. I also point out to the Committee something that the noble and learned Baroness will know but other noble Lords may have forgotten: namely, that at the “reasonable grounds” stage the threshold is lower for children due to there being no requirement to show means of exploitation. That position will not change.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I have been biting my tongue, but the Minister talked about the real world, and I do not think that this Government have any concept of what exists in the real world. The Minister has heard examples from the real world, given by noble Lords who understand what is going on. It is not appropriate for the Minister to talk about the real world when he is denying the stories that he has heard today.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am not denying any stories. I set out statistics earlier on which were absolutely from the real world, and that is the issue that we are dealing with.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting, but the Minister has cited the statistics that he quoted earlier in answer to the question of why the Government were doing this. He talked about the number of referrals going from 3% to 16%. There could be three explanations for that increase: a rise in modern slavery; more cases being reported, even if modern slavery is not going up; or an increase in misuse. Bearing in mind that the majority of referrals to the national referral mechanism are made by the Home Office, and bearing in mind what he said about very few of the people who are referred being returned— I did not quite get the percentage—it sounds like the majority of those cases are not misuse. What we need are not the statistics that the Minister is relying on but the statistics on how many cases of misuse there are.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I have already said that I will write. I will copy everybody in, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, with the relevant data. We can have an interesting discussion about potential explanations for it, but what it shows is that there is a significant increase. The question I was seeking to meet was: why do something now, why not wait until a future Bill? The short answer is that we have a manifesto commitment to deal with immigration and asylum issues. It is right that we address all issues at this stage, but, as I have underlined, this is not the Government’s last word on modern slavery. Now I really want to make some progress or we will be here until 3 am again.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Does the noble Lord not accept that 24% of modern slavery cases are UK nationals and have nothing to do with what the Conservative Party put in its manifesto?

13:15

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am certainly willing to accept that a significant number of modern slavery victims are UK nationals. I do not know whether it is 24%, off the top of my head, but I am willing to have a look at that and come back to the noble Lord. I want to make some progress now, because I think we are going round the same points again and again.

Coming back to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, all child potential victims of modern slavery in England and Wales will be provided with an independent child trafficking guardian to support them in navigating the immigration and national referral mechanism systems. Decision-makers are obviously trained in making those decisions, and the particular needs of children are an important part of that. In fact, I hope what I have just said responds also to some of the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol.

Moving to Amendment 153, as the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Paddick, also recognised, we understand that there will be cases where individuals are unable to comply with a deadline. There might be objective reasons, such as being under coercive control of an exploiter, or subjective ones, such as trauma, mental health issues or mental capacity, which can affect somebody’s ability to recall events. The clauses as drafted provide for this. As I have said on previous groups, we will set out in guidance the details of this approach, giving decision-makers the tools to recognise the effects of exploitation and trauma.

Where a person has raised evidence late, I suggest that it is right that decision-makers consider whether there is any merit in the reasons for that lateness. Credibility is not necessarily determinative of the case, should other factors indicate that the individual is a victim or potential victim of modern slavery. Amendment 154 asks what will be defined as a “good reason” for late disclosure. That has deliberately not been defined in the Bill, as setting out a list reduces flexibility. Decision-makers will be able to consider all relevant factors, which may include everything set out in the list in this amendment.

Clause 58 is underpinned by the provision of legal aid, as I have said. Amendment 172A would provide non-means-tested legal advice on all immigration matters to individuals who might not be victims of modern slavery. This amendment is a wide expansion of the legal aid scheme which is entirely uncosted and ignores the Government’s responsibility to use taxpayer funding wisely, in a way that obtains value for money. Such a wholesale expansion of the legal aid scheme would allow anyone claiming that they are a victim of modern slavery, but who might not be, to receive immigration advice with no financial eligibility checks in place. Legal aid for immigration matters is already available for victims of modern slavery who have a positive decision from the national referral mechanism, and the Bill does not change this. This includes ongoing support from the mechanism if required by the victim. Of course, the exceptional case funding scheme is available on top of that.

The intention of Clauses 65 and 66 is to bring advice on the national referral mechanism into scope from the outset. This builds on what is already available by helping unidentified victims who are within the immigration system to enter the mechanism. Without Clause 66, we will miss the opportunity to identify potential victims when they are receiving legal aid on their removal case.

I have two further short points. I listened very carefully to my noble friend Lord Henley, a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Indeed, I appeared before that committee I think only last week. I have read the report carefully. It is on the Bench with me—it is a thumbed copy, not just a copy from the Royal Gallery. I hope I have set out the reasons for the Government’s approach, even if I apprehend that I may not have convinced him of their correctness.

Finally, I will ensure that the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is passed on. My understanding—and I am newer here than she is—is that a decision on whether and when to repeat an Urgent Question taken in the Commons is for the usual channels. Even if I were a Home Office Minister, and I am not, I could not help on that further.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I am impressed by the Minister’s argument that the intention is benevolent, but how does he square that with the opening point of the powerful speech of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss: that the whole voluntary sector is convinced that this is damaging and unhelpful? As for his criticism that Amendment 154 would limit flexibility, could he reread the amendment and note that the opening line includes the phrase

“include, but are not limited to”

in respect of the list of reasons? In other words, it deliberately retains flexibility.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I reply to his points in reverse order. On the second, of course I appreciate that it is a non-exhaustive list. The point I was making is that even a non-exhaustive list is more prescriptive, when it comes to court, than absolute discretion. When you are arguing a case, even if the statute says A, B, C, D, E on a non-exhaustive basis, you are in greater trouble coming along with F, than if the discretion is free-standing. That is the point I was seeking to make.

Of course, my colleagues in the Home Office engage carefully with the commissioner and other entities in the voluntary sector. Ultimately, it is for the Government to decide what legislation to bring before the House.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I want to deal with Urgent Questions again, because the Minister answered a different question from mine. I asked why it was advertised so late. He may not know this, but the Greens are excluded from the usual channels, so we would have no way of knowing.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

At this point, all I can do is pass that on, and I will.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

On Amendment 172A, I think the Minister said that victims of modern slavery already have access to legal advice, once the national referral mechanism has made an initial decision. If he looks at that amendment carefully, he will see it is entitled “pre-national referral mechanism advice”.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right, which is why I was making the point about it being a fundamental extension of the legal aid system, which is uncosted.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to this incredibly important debate. It lasted just over an hour, so I will be brief to allow us to move on; otherwise, we could have a huge debate again in me responding to the Minister. I am sure many of the same points will, quite rightly, come up in the other groups. I hope noble Lords understand and accept that.

I will reiterate the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. It is interesting to note that, when a Government are in trouble, they defend themselves against everybody. You know when a Government are in difficulty because they resort to exactly the sort of defence—quite rightly; I have done it myself—that the Minister resorted to: “If only you understood the statistics and appreciated the difficulties”. That officialdom then rains on everything. When everybody else thinks you are wrong, you usually are. I gently suggest to the Government that they have got this wrong.

I am pleased the Minister was honest about this and I thank him for his response. It is clear the Government think the system is being abused and that people are claiming to be victims of modern slavery, either straightaway or late in the day. The Government are determined to shut down this loophole in the system. That is what is going on and it is why the danger that all of us raised about including modern slavery in an immigration Bill or the Nationality and Borders Bill—whatever you want to call it—sets a context that is difficult for modern slavery, to put it mildly.

All that I would say to the Minister is that even if the Government are right in saying that there is a problem here, by trying to deal with the issue as an immigration offence, which is essentially what they are doing, they are driving a coach and horses through the principles of the Modern Slavery Act. That is why people are so upset about it, so disappointed about it, so angry about it and so frustrated about it. They accept that the Government have to deal with immigration and that there are difficulties but this country has been proud of the way in which we deal with victims of modern slavery. Treating them, as they will be, as potential immigration offenders will change the dynamic. There are victims who we do not know and have no idea who they are. Children, whether they are 17 and a half or 13 are going to be impacted. As a consequence of what the Government are doing, innocent victims are going to be penalised in the name of tackling the problem of immigration. That is why people are so disappointed.

In conclusion, I say to the Minister that it must come to something when large numbers of the governing party as well as all the other parties that make up this House, including organisations of all faiths, are arraigned against this measure, along with all the voluntary sector, including the Government’s own voluntary organisation, the Salvation Army. I should have thought that that would have given the Government pause for thinking that maybe they have not got this quite right. Let us hope that between now and Report that they do so, otherwise I can foresee real problems on Report with respect to the clause and the other clauses in Part 5. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 151D withdrawn.

Clause 57 agreed.

Clause 58: Late compliance with slavery or trafficking information notice: damage to credibility

Amendments 152 to 155 not moved.

Clause 58 agreed.

Clause 59: Identification of potential victims of slavery or human trafficking

Amendment 156

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

156: Clause 59, page 63, line 1, leave out subsection (4)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment deletes Clause 59 subsection (4).

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for setting the scene and others who contributed to the previous debate on this part of the Bill. I welcome my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart to his place on the Front Bench. He is a much more distinguished member of the Faculty of Advocates. I am grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for raising its concerns with me, which has led to my tabling the amendment. I very much look forward to hearing from others on this group, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Coaker. We will hear their views on their amendments in due course.

This amendment seeks to delete Clause 59(4), which states:

“Guidance issued under subsection (1) must, in particular, provide that the determination mentioned in paragraph (d) is to be made on the balance of probabilities.”


The amendment is to raise my concerns and dismay but also to provide the opportunity for my noble and learned friend in summing up the debate to explain the Government’s thinking on raising the bar for evidence.

Clause 59 makes specific reference, as we heard earlier, to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and seeks to amend Sections 49, 50, 51 and 56 of it. The clause raises the standard of proof for determining a reasonable grounds decision for a victim of trafficking from “suspect but cannot prove” to “balance of probabilities”. Indicators that a person is a victim of trafficking can be missed by first responders, meaning that a referral to the national referral mechanism is not made. If a referral is made, reasonable grounds represents a sift to determine whether someone may be a victim of trafficking and whether further investigation is needed.

Home Office statistics reveal that 92% of reasonable-grounds decisions and 89% of conclusive-grounds decisions on the balance of probabilities are positive. The evidence basis for so-called overidentification is not made. The lower standard of proof at the reasonable-grounds decision stage helps ensure that potential victims do not miss out on being properly investigated and progressed to the conclusive-grounds stage of the national referral mechanism.

13:30

Raising the standard of proof at reasonable-grounds stage where minimal information is collected by the competent authority could foreseeably result in fewer referrals being made and will increase the prospect of potential victims not being identified by the national referral mechanism, thereby with an investigation not even taking place. In my view, it would be regrettable if, by raising the standard of proof at reasonable grounds stage, fewer referrals would made but the prospect of potential victims not being identified by the NRM without an investigation taking place would increase. So, I raise my concerns and those of the Law Society of Scotland about raising the evidence bar in the guidelines and give my noble friend the opportunity to explain. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, if Amendment 156 is agreed I cannot call Amendment 156A by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to address Amendments 156A and 156B in this group and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and what she said about the Scottish Law Society. I very much associate myself with her remarks. I turn the attention of the Committee to these two amendments, the kernel of which is

“(1ZA) Guidance issued under subsection (1) must, in particular, provide that the determination mentioned in paragraph (c) is to be made on the standard of “suspect but cannot prove”.”


My explanatory statement says—I will not read it all—

“This amendment would ensure that amendments made to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 do not raise the threshold”—


the point the noble Baroness has just referred to—

“for a Reasonable Grounds decision when accessing the National Referral Mechanism in line with—”

the guidance.

One thing that came out of the last debate was that it was pretty clear that the whole Committee is agreed about one thing: that the national referral mechanism is vital to the recovery and safety of survivors of modern slavery. Since its introduction in what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was right to refer to as “landmark legislation” in 2015, a point echoed by the noble and learned Lord in replying to that debate, it has allowed us to identify survivors and ensure they receive the right support and are able to assist law enforcement in tackling this abhorrent trade in human beings and human suffering. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Prashar and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for signing Amendment 156A.

Accessing the NRM is the crucial first step on a survivor’s journey to recovery, giving them access to vital legal and financial support, safe accommodation and an exit from the kind of exploitation that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred to earlier. It enables them to start the process of rebuilding their lives, empowering themselves and even bravely supporting the prosecution of traffickers so that more potential victims are saved from exploitation. First established in 2009, and supported by successive Governments, the NRM was recently highlighted by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe as being a key element in the fight to end slavery. Since then, with the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the UK has become a world leader in this fight and a beacon of hope for those who have been trafficked and enslaved.

However, as the noble Lord said earlier, and I agree with him in this sense, the national referral mechanism is not perfect. That is clear but the opportunity to do something about it is up the track. There is no need for Part 5 to be incorporated in the Bill, when it is inconsistent with much else in it anyway. The noble Lord told the House earlier that there is to be new legislation, so why on earth can we not wait for that? There is an old saying that when you legislate in haste, you repent at leisure; that is what we will do if we simply push this through in a pell-mell way. The mechanism may not be perfect, but it is better than anything else at the moment and we should be very careful about what we do to it.

There is a catalogue of confusion and delays, but I am sure the Government do not believe that the only solution is simply to reduce the number of poor people able to access support. However, that is exactly what Clause 59 will do. Effectively increasing the threshold that these traumatised individuals must meet, almost from the get-go, to receive support will not only leave many with the choice of slavery or destitution; it will fundamentally undo the years of hard work by government, police, NGOs, charities and Members of both Houses.

Even now, far too many survivors go unrecognised and are excluded from support. Despite our understanding of the nature of trauma and the horrors so many have gone through, many do not receive a “reasonable grounds” decision and are forced to reapply. In the previous debate, we were urged to get into the real world. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, had a better definition of what the real world is than the one we heard from the Government Front Bench. I will do as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, did earlier and share one example with the House, if I may.

It is the case of a poor woman who was the victim of trafficking and violent sexual exploitation. By the time she arrived in the UK, she already had severe PTSD. Her symptoms included involuntary numbing, avoidance, dissociation and shame. She failed to disclose her trafficking experience in her early interactions with the Home Office, due to the severe trauma she had experienced. These inconsistencies later contributed to her receiving a negative decision on her trafficking claim. However, they needed to be understood in the context, as I said earlier, of prolonged exposure to trauma at an early age and fear of reprisals from her abusers.

Clause 59 risks raising the threshold for a positive reasonable grounds decision at this vital first stage, meaning that survivors such as that woman will be forced to meet an even higher threshold of evidence almost immediately, before they have accessed safety and a lawyer, translator or advocate to help provide the evidence that is expected of them. The noble Lord who addressed the House earlier has promised to write to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, me and others with more data. Here is a little data that I will share with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe.

It is worth noting that 81% of all negative decisions at this first stage which where reconsidered were found to have been wrong, and the victim deserved a positive reasonable grounds decision. Currently, there are an estimated 136,000 victims of modern slavery in the UK, and a little over 10,000 were referred to the NRM in 2020. That means there is a vast number of individuals who have been trafficked and enslaved in our country and are already far from the safety offered by the national referral mechanism. Were we to raise the threshold to access safety and support, it would surely only play into the hands of the traffickers and slave masters by preventing survivors sharing their experience and supporting criminal investigations.

I note that the Government have denied that Clause 59 will increase the threshold, and that the intention behind it is to bring us in line with the European convention on action against trafficking—ECAT. However, many who are in the anti-slavery movement, to which we heard a lot of references earlier, and on the ground in the real world supporting vulnerable people every day believe that it is already harder today than it was, even a year ago, to get a positive decision. As such, if not remedied in the guidance, the change in language represented in this clause would effectively raise the NRM threshold.

Furthermore, the Government have rightly decided to include in the Bill that conclusive grounds decisions be made on the balance of probabilities. If the intention is not to raise the threshold, then I simply ask the Minister that they put in the Bill that reasonable grounds decisions be made on the tried and trusted standard of “suspect but cannot prove”, which is the essence of Amendments 156A and 156B. That would allow the Government to change the language of the Modern Slavery Act to be more in line with ECAT, in order to provide more consistency between conclusive grounds decisions and reasonable grounds decisions in the Bill. Vitally, it would not raise the threshold for survivors of trafficking to receive a positive decision, therefore ensuring that these poor people receive the support they so desperately need and the authorities have the evidence they need to end slavery.

Article 10(2) of ECAT says that

“if the competent authorities have reasonable grounds to believe that a person has been victim of trafficking in human beings, that person shall not be removed from its territory until the identification process as victim of an offence … has been completed”.

Both ECAT and the Modern Slavery Act envisage that support be given to victims through the NRM as the earliest stage possible, when someone is identified as a potential victim. Raising the threshold only to those who prove their status as a victim of trafficking would undermine the point of the three-stage referral system currently in place. That support is crucial to enable victims to make any discourses from a position of safety.

No doubt the Minister will say that the NRM may have been abused, but I ask him to provide the justification for that claim. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I said earlier, where is the data? I refer the Minister to the report by the Rights Lab at the University of Nottingham for evidence that the NRM is not being abused. Indeed, according to many reports, one of the biggest problems with our NRM is that it is underutilised; there are already a low number of referrals to the NRM. According to the Global Slavery Index, the estimated figure for the prevalence of modern slavery in the UK is 136,000, yet in 2020 only 10,613 potential victims were referred to the NRM. Raising the threshold would serve only to further restrict those who access the vital resources of the NRM.

I therefore felt it necessary to table these amendments. Those who are referred to the NRM are often among the most vulnerable, in the most traumatic moments of their lives. We should not be raising the threshold; we should be doing everything we can to facilitate their access to support. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I shall speak to amendments 156A and 156B in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, to which I have added my name. I hope I can be fairly brief because much of the ground has been set out brilliantly by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I am very grateful for that.

The reality of Clause 59 is that raising the threshold—from “reasonable grounds” to believe that someone maybe a victim of modern slavery, to “is” such a victim—could lead to the national referral mechanism failing to identify victims of modern slavery, effectively shutting them out of the support that they so desperately need. That was picked up yesterday in our General Synod debate across the road, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol has already alluded.

The Clewer initiative, to which she has also alluded, is our response to modern slavery. It was set up in 2016 and published three strategies for 2022. Two of these included promoting victim identification and providing victim care and support. Our concern, along with the Clewer initiative, is not just to get down to the legal minimum but to try to accompany people on what is the most traumatic journey, through which many of them will need considerable help. Part of the reason for that—many Members of your Lordships’ House will grasp this but many people in wider society do not—is that much modern slavery is effectively hidden, and sometimes so subtle that even the people involved in it do not always get what is going on. That is why it affects drug traffickers, fruit pickers, beauticians, people working in nail bars and so on, as well as the obvious areas where people find themselves caught up—for example, in the sex industry.

This coercion is a subtle thing, but it plays a central role in keeping individuals in this misery. It can range from violence to substance addiction, debt bondage and, of course, withholding people’s papers. So, it is a long and complex process. The CURE initiative states that beyond these factors, one of the key elements in controlling victims of modern slavery is creating a fear of any authority so the victims simply do not know where to go. Often, victims will hide.

13:45

So it is crucial that, as we are trying to think about the right threshold, we make sure people are getting support and not being prevented before they have even accessed a lawyer, translator or advocate to help evidence their experiences. My fear is that, without these amendments, exploiters and slavers will be able to lean on this increased threshold to further manipulate and control their victims, and deter them from seeking help.

I will just underline some statistics—and one or two more—that the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, mentioned. In 2020, the single competent authorities, he said, made 10,608 reasonable grounds and 3,454 conclusive grounds decisions. Of these, 92% of reasonable grounds and 89% of conclusive grounds were positive; and 81% of reconsidered claims at reasonable grounds stage were later positive. In other words, the vast majority of those who receive positive reasonable grounds decisions go on to be confirmed as victims. That is the crucial thing here.

It seems extraordinary that it looks as if the Government are trying to bring the UK in line with the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking—ECAT—for reasonable grounds decisions on whether a person is a victim of modern slavery, particularly when our current legislation, it would appear, goes well beyond ECAT and strengthens the identification mechanisms to ensure that fewer victims fall through the cracks and fail to receive the appropriate support after the terrible injustices they have incurred and the suffering they have experienced.

I cannot tell whether this alignment it seems the Government are doing is simply for alignment’s sake. But it does seem extraordinary when we were told again and again that the point about Brexit was that we did not need to align with others and could actually make the right decisions. Yesterday’s debate paid huge tribute to our Government in this country for being a trailblazer in this work. I fear that we are going backwards at a time when we need a much stronger lead in our nation. I am struggling to identify any positives with respect to the increased reasonable grounds threshold, and I worry it will simply play into the hands of traffickers. We need the Government to look afresh at this section. I particularly commend these amendments as a way that we may improve this Bill as it goes through Parliament.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 156A and 156B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and myself. I will be extremely brief as all the points I wished to make have already been covered. Therefore, I really want to say that I strongly support the amendments and the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that the Government should put on the face of the Bill that a reasonable grounds decision should be made on the tried and trusted standard of “suspect but cannot prove”. I think his explanation and the logic of his arguments were compelling, so I would urge the Government to pay some heed.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest because, in my work on sustainability in the business that I chair, we of course help companies to deal with modern slavery. That is why I wish to rise. It does mean we know a bit about it, and I have to say to the Government that everybody who knows a bit about it does not agree with the Government. That is why we have to say this very clearly.

The problem with modern slavery is that people who are involved in it hardly know where they are and what it is all about. That is the difficulty because, whatever we do, access to whatever we do is always going to be the problem. We have to find ways of ensuring that as many people as possible can enter into the beginnings of a conversation which will, in the end, reach the position in which they will be released from modern slavery—and it is that beginning moment that is most important and delicate.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that what is being proposed in this part of the Bill should not be here at all, simply because, in this context, it makes a comment which it should not make. In this context, it comments that this is something to do with nationality, borders and immigration. But it is nothing to do with any of those except accidentally—and I use that word in the technical sense.

We ought to be immensely proud of this legislation. I sit as the independent chairman of the Climate Change Committee, so I do not often mention the fact that I have been a Conservative for many years. I am not quite sure of the situation in certain circumstances, but that is the position in which I find myself, and I will say that I think it is one of the great statements of the Conservative Party that it was at the centre of passing this legislation. It shows that we have a real understanding of the responsibility of those who have to those who have not. That is why the intervention of the right reverend Prelate is absolutely appropriate, because this about the attitude to human beings that we should have if we are people of faith.

Anything that detracts from a triumph should be opposed, above all, by those who have been proud of it in the past. That is why I do not want this particular debate to go on without somebody from these Benches making the points. It is wrong to make it more difficult for people to get into the system. The moment you move away from “suspect but cannot prove”, you make it more difficult, and I hope that this House will not allow the Government to do this. Above all, I hope that the Government will think again about why they want to do this. They have presented no proof that there is any widespread misuse of this. Even if they did, I put it to the Minister that that is a price we have to pay. They have not proved it; there is no evidence for it; but, even if there were, one has to accept that the nature of the people we are dealing with means that we have to reach out further than we would in other circumstances.

At the moment, I fear that the Government are like the Levite rather than the Good Samaritan, and I wish them to return to their proper place, which is to cross the road to find out what is happening.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, for the reasons given by other speakers—particularly the last speaker, with whom I profoundly agree—I support these amendments. However, I want to raise a slightly different point on Clause 59. It appears to apply to children. I have had, over the years, numerous meetings with the Home Office, and I thought we had got to the position where the Home Office agreed that the NRM was not the right place for children to go, because anyone under the age of 18 becomes immediately, on arrival in this country, the responsibility of a local authority under Part 3 of the Children Act 1989. Consequently, local authorities take over these children.

As the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, pointed out, there are these independent guardians—advocates, who act as guardians—but the children are supposed to be cared for by a local authority with an independent guardian and should not be going through the NRM. What disturbs me about Clause 59, in addition to the points that have already been so ably made, is whether it is really intended that the Government want children to go through the NRM. Should not they in fact all be dealt with entirely through local authorities, with the help of the advocate?

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, my name is to Amendment 157. This is a rhetorical question, but is not it interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who, if I am right, was not able to be here for the first group of amendments, has made points that were not rehearsed in his presence but are exactly the same points, as he says, from the point of view of the best traditions of Conservatism?

Clause 59 again prompts the question: why, and what is the problem? What is the evidence for what the Government perceive as a problem? Are there too many people claiming to be victims? Like other noble Lords, I thought the problem was that we do not know how many there are. We try to identify them, but we know that we do not manage to identify them all—but we know that all the indicators are that modern slavery goes wide and deep. The problem is that we do not identify everyone that we want to support. What underlines the Modern Slavery Act is getting people to the situation in which they can be supported.

Under Amendment 157, the Member’s explanatory statement actually refers to “current statutory guidance”, a point that was very well made in the previous debate.

I want to say a word about Amendment 173, on navigators. I am quite intrigued by this—guardians for adults, is that what is intended? Some police forces have a much better understanding of how to deal with victims, or possible victims, of slavery. I am not sure whether I have the name of this right, but I think that there was a transformation unit; the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, may remember. The police did a lot of work at one time. Can we hear about that from the Minister?

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I may be able to help the noble Baroness—it was at Exmouth. I went to see it.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

Indeed, it was excellent. That is why I raised it—because I wonder what has happened to it. As I say, I find the suggestion made in Amendment 173 intriguing, and I hope that it will be taken very seriously.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I rise briefly to say that we support the amendments in this group. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, and we have said right across the Chamber, the points that he made about the contribution that Theresa May made—within the coalition Government, as I was reminded—were fantastic.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I was not there for that, but it seemed to me that it was worth repeating, if I may put it clearly.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Well, it is the first time that I have heard repetition in this Chamber, so I thought that the noble Lord could not have been here. But it was a serious point, and it deserved to be made again, because we all agreed with it.

We support all the amendments in the group. I will speak specifically to Amendments 157 and 173. The other amendments have been spoken to very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others, so I will not address those, in the interests of time. With respect to Amendment 157, it is intriguing that the statutory guidance says that

“a Conclusive Grounds decision will not be made until at least 45 days of the recovery period have passed”.

Why does the Bill reduce that to 30? That is my understanding, unless I have misread it. We talk about enhancing, but, as I say, 45 days is the period in the statutory guidance, while the Bill talks about 30 days.

Given that we are in Committee, it would be interesting to hear more on this. Am I wrong? Does the 30 days refer to something different? I cannot find references to 45 days in the Bill, but that is what is in the statutory guidance. Could the Minister respond to that? It would be helpful to the Committee to know what the 30-day period is vis-à-vis the 45 days set out in the statutory guidance, which is what the whole sector uses with respect to the recovery period and is, indeed, how I have understood it.

14:00

As has been said, the recovery period gives the police time to gather evidence and build a relationship with the victims. It gives the victims time to access support, break the control of their traffickers and build relationships with agencies. All of this is beneficial to securing prosecutions, which are woefully low, whatever the efforts of the Government and the police. The crucial question is: how does this help? What is gained by reducing the recovery period? I just do not understand the logic of that.

Can the Minister inform the Committee—he may not be able to do so now, but this is worth asking before we get to Report—how many decisions are currently made at the 45-day mark? The anti-slavery commissioner has given figures that the average length of time it took for a conclusive grounds decision to be made in 2020 was 465 days. So why would the Government seek to shorten a timeframe that they are already substantially failing to meet? Have I profoundly misunderstood something—if that is the case, it would be helpful for the Committee for me to be corrected—or am I right and there is something here that we need to understand?

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, although she is not in her place. On Amendment 173 on victim navigators, we can see the success that the pilot has had. It would be interesting to know what plans the Government have to roll this out. Clearly, they are looking at ways to try to increase the prosecution rate for people traffickers, which we would all support. However, there is currently nothing in the Bill about what is expected with victim navigators. What is happening? Is that just being rolled out as a matter of policy anyway and does not need to be in the Bill because it is going to happen? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out, where victim navigators are in place with police forces, working with the CPS and others, the prosecution rates have improved, as I understand it. That seems to suggest that it would be helpful if victim navigators were rolled out into all police force areas.

Amendments 157 and 173 are probing amendments to understand the operation of the Bill. We also support the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have put before the Committee.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. The amendments in large part concern provisions around the identification of modern slavery and trafficking victims.

First to speak was my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who sought an explanation for Clause 59. The clause places the conclusive grounds threshold of a “balance of probabilities” into legislation. This is in line with the threshold that is currently applied and accepted by the courts and aligns with our current obligations under the treaty to which a number of speakers have referred: the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings —ECAT.

We submit that to remove this provision, as Amendment 156 would, would cause an inconsistent approach towards the two thresholds: the reasonable grounds threshold would be contained within legislation, whereas the conclusive grounds threshold would remain only in guidance. By legislating for both thresholds, decision-makers are able to rely on clear precedent and the process is both certain and ascertainable. This search for clarity will run through and inform the answers I will put before the Committee in this debate.

Amendments 156A and 156B from the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, would amend the test for a reasonable grounds decision in legislation. The matter of whether there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that an individual is a victim is the appropriate threshold —again, as it mirrors our obligations under ECAT. For those reasons, I cannot accept Amendments 156, 156A and 156B.

I shall expand on matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, touching first on the ability that exists in legislation for people to challenge a decision made. Multiagency assurance panels are required to review all negative conclusive grounds decisions made by the competent authority for all cases submitted to the relevant competent authority. Multiagency assurance panels do not review negative reasonable grounds decisions. The role of multiagency assurance panels and the processes they follow are set out in the modern slavery statutory guidance for England and Wales promulgated under Section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. There is equivalent non-statutory guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland; it is not found in primary legislation. The guidance states:

“An individual, or someone acting on their behalf, may request reconsideration”


of a negative reasonable grounds decision by the competent authority

“if additional evidence becomes available that would be material to the outcome of a case, or there are specific concerns that a decision made is not in line with guidance.”

The final conclusive grounds decision remains the responsibility of the competent authority. Multiagency assurance panels do not have the ability to overturn negative conclusive grounds decisions made by the competent authority. The competent authority can be asked to review a case where there is concern that the decision has not been made in line with existing guidance; that, in the view of the multiagency assurance panel, that would add value and clarity but has not been sought; or that the evidence provided and used in the decision-making process was not weighed appropriately and considered. So an element of its ability to reconsider and discretion remains in place.

I think the whole Committee will be aware that understanding of the painful effects of trauma and suffering on individuals and their ability to recollect is developing and has developed considerably over recent years, as a better comprehension of these strains and pressures comes to be understood. That understanding filters into this field, as into others. In particular, I refer your Lordships to understanding in the criminal justice system as to why people may make declarations or give statements that are not in their best interests or that they subsequently seek to go back on.

This topic seems to inform the points raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and my noble friend Lord Deben. Victims may well not want or be able to relive their trauma to state officials. Moulded by forces that those of us who have been happy enough to lead comfortable and sheltered lives can barely comprehend, they may find state officials intimidating.

Will the policy inhibit such people and impact adversely their ability to come forward and speak up? We recognise that some victims of exploitation may be fearful of coming forward to talk to the authorities, including some of the organisations that operate as first responders. That is why a range of organisations operate as first responders, including charities—some of which the Committee has heard about—that work closely with victims and local authorities.

We are keen to ensure that potential victims of trafficking are identified as early as possible and are supporting this with an improved legal aid offer for victims of trafficking with no immigration status within the United Kingdom and subject to immigration removal. This is to ensure that individuals receive the correct support package at the earliest opportunity to address their needs, regardless of when cases are brought, to make sure that those who need protection are afforded it.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister is dealing with these issues with great sensitivity and I welcome the tone of his remarks. He has—I think deliberately—left a number of questions hanging, saying that a lot of work is being done on this and that people are considering these sensitive and detailed questions and looking at them more thoroughly. This all begs the question: who has demanded this change in this legislation at this time, in advance of us having detailed information laid before us?

It seems that we have it the wrong way around. Given that his noble friend said earlier that there will be a Bill specifically to improve the modern-day slavery legislation, why cannot we hold this over until we see more clearly where the information is wrong, where it is right and what the evidence is? Is it not the nature of good government to look and examine the evidence before bringing measures forward? I do not see any evidence that this has happened so far.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I do not wish to appear to give a cursory answer to the noble Lord in a debate of this sensitivity, but my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar committed to write on the data—I am grateful to the noble Lord for nodding his head in recognition. I imagine that the point he seeks to raise will be discussed in any such correspondence. Does that satisfy him at this stage?

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister, but it seems to be the wrong way around. Normally, there is pre-legislative scrutiny of complex and sensitive issues, and this is a classic example where there should have been pre-legislative scrutiny, as there was before the 2015 legislation, in some detail and at some length. Why was it thought that in a Bill dealing specifically, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, with nationality, borders and immigration, we should deal with an issue of this sensitivity? Would it not be better for the Government to withdraw this section of the Bill and come back with comprehensive legislation that we could all support?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I hear the points that the noble Lord makes. With respect, it seems that he moves forward into a question already put to my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar when he stood at the Dispatch Box in relation to the earlier matter. As he advised the Committee, the Government are concerned about misuse of the system. Rather than seeking to anticipate data that I confess not to having, with the noble Lord’s permission, I will move on from this point. I am again grateful to him for nodding his head.

I was expanding to the Committee on matters raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. We recognise that potential victims may not feel able at an early point to discuss information relevant to these matters bearing on their experience. That is why, in Clause 58, we have included the safeguard of “good reasons”. Each case will be considered carefully, including any reasons for not bringing information earlier, which will enable decision-makers to take trauma into account.

I am sure that I am merely rehearsing matters already within the knowledge of the Committee, but examples of what may constitute good reasons for late disclosure of information include where the victim was still under the coercive control of the trafficker, did not recognise themselves as a victim at that point, or for reasons relating to capacity—intellectual, emotional or age capacity—did not understand the requirement or the proceedings.

We will set out our approach in guidance, giving decision-makers the tools to recognise the effect that traumatic events can have on people’s ability to accurately recall or share or recognise such events. We are concerned that by too prescriptively setting out the parameters of what can constitute good reasons in guidance, we will inhibit the flexibility of decision-makers to take a case-by-case approach, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar sought to emphasise in his submission to the Committee earlier, depending on a person’s specific situation and vulnerabilities.

14:15

I hope those remarks have gone some way to answer the points raised by the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Deben. I hope I have emphasised something which I am sure does not need to be shared across the House, as compassion for victims of these dreadful and wicked crimes is understood universally throughout the Committee, across party lines and in the House generally.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am anxious not to delay matters but to seek clarification at this stage. A number of noble Lords have raised concerns about why the burden of proof has been changed and the fact that, through this higher standard, a number of victims may not enter the system at all. I cannot believe it is the Government’s wish to prevent genuine victims of modern slavery and trafficking to be excluded from the process. My noble and learned friend gave a simple, clear clarification that it was to make the bar the same for both, but the fallout, in the view of legal opinion from practitioners who will be using this on a daily basis, seems to be that we will inadvertently exclude justified victims from the whole process. I cannot believe that this is the Government’s intention, where they are genuine victims.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her intervention, which permits me the opportunity of not only repeating what I said from the Dispatch Box earlier about the importance of decisions being taken on a case-by-case basis, but advising the House—perhaps I should have done so in answering the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool—that in addition we are providing enhanced support and training to first responders.

The rationale underpinning the change proposed in relation to burdens of proof is certainly not to seek to exclude persons who ought to receive help and assistance from receiving it. The Government’s wish is that all who are victims should receive assistance and all who are criminal should receive their due punishment.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

If that is the rationale, I do not see why we need the change. I seriously do not understand what possible advantage changing this could be, whereas I perfectly clearly see what the disadvantage is. Although the Minister seeks in the most effective way to present the Government’s case, the word “rationale” is not one I would have used I these circumstances.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My noble friend sends me back to the dictionary. I shall include the use of that word in my reading later, among the other things which I expect I will be asked to reflect on. I think we are—or maybe I am—guilty of mixing up two things. The reason for the change to the test to introduce the balance of probabilities is to align ourselves with our international obligations under ECAT. It is in order to avert any baneful consequences thereof that I made reference to the enhanced support and training which first responders will receive, and to the other measures which I discussed.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I am sorry; I will not interrupt again. I still do not understand the rationale of bringing ourselves into line with our international obligations. We do not break our international obligations by going further than the international obligations, so we are already in line with them; all we are doing is withdrawing to what are, in many of our minds, unsatisfactory international obligations. Without getting into the Brexit issue, I very much agree with the right reverend Prelate when he suggested that we thought this was precisely what the Government did not want to do. I happen to want to do it but that is a different thing. I feel rather hit by this in both ways.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

The justification is to ensure clarity across the legislation, and I appreciate the comment made by the right reverend Prelate, and rehearsed by my noble friend, about advantages flowing or not from the Brexit process, which so many of your Lordships will have discussed. However, our ability to act differently from our partners across the channel is a valuable one, but what we seek to obtain by this measure is legislative clarity and a consistency in decision-making which will, we hope, benefit victims and develop understanding among all the agencies in this important sector. My noble friend is resuming his mask, and he did say that he would not interrupt again, although I hope that he will not bar himself from further interventions later in the debate.

I turn to Amendment 157, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I thank him for his powerful and compelling opening contribution to this debate and to earlier debates on the topic, and for his work at Nottingham University. I offer the Committee reassurance that we are committed to providing victims with at least a 45-day recovery period, or until a conclusive grounds decision is made, whichever period is the longer. Our position is—I maintain that this does not need to be placed on the face of the Bill, and I return to the earlier discussions with my noble friend Lord Deben—that it would create a misalignment with our international obligations under ECAT.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for all of that, and the commitment to 45 days. Why does it say 30 days in the Bill? Have I got that wrong?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

No, I think the noble Lord is correct. It is 30 days for the alignment with ECAT, but the 45 days appears in the guidance, and we commit to providing support over that period: a 45-day recovery period as expressed in the guidance, or until a conclusive grounds decision is made.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

So there is an absolute commitment to 45 days for the gap between reasonable grounds and conclusive grounds, even though legislation which we are going to pass says 30 days?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

The noble Lord shrugged his shoulders, but I repeat that the justification for this is to align with our international obligations with our partners in ECAT.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, this did not stop us passing the Modern Slavery Act, which was ahead of the rest of the world.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I am sorry to remove my mask, but I am told in the Climate Change Committee, of which I am chairman, that we have to have a British ETS which is not aligned with the rest of Europe because that is what we want. Why does it apply to climate change but not to modern slavery? On both of those issues we are in advance and wish to continue to be in advance. I do not understand this alignment element.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Can I join the maskless crew? Surely international law, and certainly EU directives, are usually a minimum requirement, so if we wanted 45 days and a European instrument said 30, that is brilliant; it is better. It at least complies, so what is the problem?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I hear from all sides of the Chamber, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

Sorry, I do not mean once again from the Dispatch Box to rain brickbats upon the noble Baroness’s head.

Once again, I am not in a position to answer or explain myself on the basis of views taken by the Climate Change Committee, but in this context alignment with our ECAT partners was considered desirable.

I move on to Clause 60, which sets out the minimum time for the recovery period in line with our international obligations under ECAT. It provides us with the flexibility to set the operational practice as needed in guidance, which is important to reflect the changing needs of victims and the understanding of victims’ needs in a developing area of law.

In practice, in 2020 the average time for a conclusive grounds decision was 339 days. This long period stems from pressures on the system, which we are working to reduce through our transformation project to ensure that victims get certainty more quickly, but it is notably longer than the proposed 45-day minimum.

In light of this explanation and the assurance of continuation of the current support set out in guidance, I hope that noble Lords in the Committee agree that Amendment 157 to Clause 60 is unnecessary. I urge noble Lords to take the view that promotes clarity and to consider that the objective of making sure that we are aligned with our international obligations is such to prompt the noble Lord not to press this amendment.

Amendment 173, again from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, seeks to introduce victim navigators for modern slavery and human trafficking victims in every police force in England and Wales. This matter was discussed in the Commons during the passage of the Bill. As was expressed on behalf of the Government, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that victims of modern slavery have the support they need when engaging with the police and through the criminal justice process.

As to the development that the noble Lord from the Front Bench advised the Committee of—that of victim navigators—we strongly support police forces using these NGO-led support models. Victim navigators are one model within that category. For that reason, we have commissioned independent research of three existing NGO victim support programmes, to help us better to understand what provision is in place and what effective support looks like for these victims. This will help inform advice to forces in the future about best practice and encourage national take-up of the most effective models of support. I also agree with the sentiment behind this proposed new clause that providing support to victims to help them navigate is something that can be studied and will inform advice to forces in future about best practice. We are already working to understand the most effective support measures, and we have made grant funding available to police forces and the GLAA to help identify and fill gaps in support.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his nods of assent and for agreeing that the work already under way should be completed and will help us to develop an understanding of how best we can support victims in engaging with the criminal justice system. It is right that we conduct that evaluation before putting a specific model of support into legislation. That is why I resist this amendment at this time and invite the noble Lord not to press it.

14:30

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, it has been an excellent debate. I thank everyone for their contributions. I think there may be a question outstanding from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, as regards children under the age of 18, but I take it as read that anyone aged under 18 would still be referred to the local authorities. I assume that my noble and learned friend will write to us if that is not the case.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that, and I beg the pardon of the noble and learned Baroness for not addressing her question directly. If she is content, I will have that expressed in writing to her.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Certainly.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am obliged.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. He has endeavoured to be as full as possible in his response to all noble Lords. I express my disappointment that the guidelines are being changed in the way the Government envisage. I am slightly confused, because a lot of the situations for which this Bill makes provision would not have arisen if we had kept our international and European responsibilities under the Dublin convention, whereby we could have returned many asylum seekers to the first country in which they arrived.

It is a regrettable change. I do not think my noble and learned friend disagreed that a number of victims will be omitted from the system as a result. I will consider with others what to do at the next stage, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 156 withdrawn.

Amendments 156A and 156B not moved.

Clause 59 agreed.

Clause 60: Identified potential victims of slavery or human trafficking: recovery period

Amendment 157 not moved.

Clause 60 agreed.

Clause 61: No entitlement to additional recovery period etc

Amendment 158

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

158: Clause 61, page 64, line 4, at end insert—
“(aa) the person was aged 18 or over at the time of the circumstances which gave rise to the first RG decision;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to preclude those exploited as children from being denied additional recovery periods if they are re-trafficked.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, before I start my remarks on this group of amendments, I want to say in answer to the question asked earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that the problem the Minister has—and he has it all the way through this part of the Bill—is that what the Government do not like saying is that the reason they are doing this is not really to do with modern slavery. They are trying to sort out what they see as an immigration mess and the problem they have with everybody moaning about immigration, asylum and so on, and this has ended up in a Bill it should not be in. That is the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, asked why we were doing this. The answer is, “because we think the modern slavery system is being abused and lots of people who shouldn’t be applying to it are applying to it, and they’re immigration offenders and not victims of modern slavery”.

What this Committee is saying is that it should not be in this Bill. Victims of modern slavery are being conflated with immigration offenders, and it will lead to the undermining of the Modern Slavery Act and the principles on which it is based, and to potential victims not receiving the support and help they need. That is the motivation for the Government in doing this. I do not think that it is the motivation for this Minister, which is why it is sometimes particularly difficult for him to answer the specific questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, as a one-nation Conservative—I think that is a compliment to him. The noble Lord has been trying to say to him that it was that brand of conservatism which drove the Modern Slavery Act. Perhaps the current Government—I can say this not as a lifelong Conservative—could learn from that. But that is a matter for internal grief and beyond the scope of this Bill.

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the titles of these clauses. I will say something on Clause 61, “No entitlement to additional recovery period etc”, but there is a particular difficulty with Clause 62, “Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection”, which goes to the heart of the problem. Essentially, it is another way for the Government to say that potential victims of slavery are abusing the system to get round it because they are really immigration offenders. The Government are saying, “The system is being abused and we are going to stop it, and this is the way we’re going to do it”. The problem is that they are going to undermine the Modern Slavery Act and the modern slavery system that they have put in place, of which they should be proud, and indeed of which people—including all of us—are proud. It is that contradiction that goes to the heart of Part 5 in every single utterance, whether it is made from the Government Front Bench, the Opposition Front Bench or others in this Chamber.

I point out that Clause 62 does not even say “potential victims”; it talks about “identified potential victims”. No wonder there is such disquiet, upset and anger about this clause, which I will come on to in a minute. There are very real problems with Clause 61, but particularly with Clause 62, hence the amendments that I and other noble Lords have tabled, and the clause stand part notice.

Again, I come back to this question on Clause 61: what problem are the Government actually trying to fix that requires primary legislation? Again and again that has been asked by noble Lords across the Chamber without the Government really being able to answer—apart the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, intimating the explanation I gave in his remarks on an earlier group.

The Explanatory Notes state that Clause 61 is there:

“In order to prevent the recovery period being misused by those wishing to extend their stay in the UK and to remove unnecessary support and barriers to removal”.


Again, that goes to the heart of it. The Government are seeking to change an immigration offence using a modern slavery context. It is a contradiction. It is not supposed to be like that. The whole point of the Modern Slavery Act was to take this out of the immigration context of the Home Office. That perennial battle between immigration and modern slavery is unresolved and requires parts of the Government to stand up and say, “You’re wrong and we’re not going to do that”.

What evidence is there of recovery periods being abused? That is of interest, I think, as evidence for the proposed change before us. What evidence is there of us providing “unnecessary support” to a person using the NRM? Re-trafficking has increasingly become part of the traffickers’ operating model, including where people return to their enslavers for fear of repercussions for their families, which we touched on earlier. How does Clause 61 respond to or break that model? Does not the refusal of a further recovery period simply strengthen the perpetrators? I think that is a real risk.

As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has asked on a number of occasions, will children be subject to the restrictions under Clause 61? Every single part of this Bill makes no distinction at all between adults and children. The Minister has experience of the legislative system, which, as a basis, divides children and adults on the grounds of good justice. Why is that not the case here? This is what Amendment 158 seeks to probe. Does the Minister have any figures for the number of children who go missing and are re-trafficked? Does he agree—again, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, also asked this—that a missing child at risk of exploitation is a safeguarding issue, not an immigration or enforcement issue?

On Clause 62, the key question is what action, if any, the Secretary of State intends to take on the comments made by the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, who has written a scathing article in the Times today—note the word “independent” in the commissioner’s title. The headline says:

“Fears about bill that would take support away from some modern slavery victims”.

She has concerns about the way Clause 62 will operate and the wide way in which certain phrases in it could be drawn. Is it the Government’s intention to ignore the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, including where she says that Clause 62 will empower and embolden people traffickers and criminal gangs? Why is something that the anti-slavery commissioner says is harmful included in the Bill? Can the Minister also give further detail on how Clause 62 will operate in relation to children who are victims of criminal exploitation?

The lead signatory of Amendment 169 is the noble Lord, Lord Randall, but he cannot be with us today and has sent his apologies. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, have also signed it. Amendment 169 suggests to the Government that, if they are going to have Clause 62, which many would say should not be part of the Bill, this is a way they could redraft it to try to address some concerns. I personally would not keep Clause 62 but, instead of just a vague reference to a “threat to public order”, whatever that means, the amendment’s proposed new subsection (2)(a) inserts the words

“is prevented from doing so as a result of an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order”,

rather than a wider definition.

Similarly, under

“Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection”,

we have put the words:

“in exceptional circumstances … following an assessment of all the circumstances of the case.”

Then there is the importance of international co-operation and the fact that we have also not included children. These specific points seek to address some of the concerns that have been raised by many groups and other noble Lords.

My Amendment 164A is to probe a specific question: where a person is covered by Clause 62, is it the Government’s intention that that person will still be entitled to and receive a conclusive grounds decision, as they do at present, or do the Government consider that the duty to investigate trafficking and exploitation no longer applies?

The criticism of Clause 61 and particularly Clause 62 is that, in the Government’s efforts to deal with what they perceive is an immigration problem, they are undermining the protection that the Modern Slavery Act gives victims. That view is held by many noble Lords in this Committee, many Members in the other place and the various NGOs that seek to inform our debates. I beg to move.

[The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)]

My Lords, I must inform the Committee that, if Amendment 160A is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 161 to 163, by reason of pre-emption.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I want to speak to the JCHR amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Those were very strong words from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I found them extremely persuasive, including his remarks on one-nation conservatism. I see the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Deben, in their place, and I commend the speech of Sir John Major today, which I have followed a little on Twitter.

Amendment 159 was inspired by the JCHR and seeks to remove the discretion around whether a person who has a positive reasonable grounds decision and a conclusive grounds decision pending could avoid removal. Instead of saying that the competent authority “may determine” that removal should not take place, if that is appropriate in the circumstances of the case, we suggest it “must”.

Clause 59 has already changed the Modern Slavery Act so that we are talking about people who “are” victims of slavery or human trafficking, not those who “may be”. Therefore, it is surely right that such victims, who have been given an additional positive reasonable grounds decision for new or more recent slavery or trafficking allegations, must not be removed.

14:45

Indeed, in paragraph 76 of their ECHR memorandum, the Government say

“where … the Secretary of State will be required to make a new conclusive grounds decision on the new referral … the person will be protected from removal in the meantime, ensuring compliance with Article 10(2)”

of ECAT. However, Clause 61 does not accord with that, because it retains as a discretionary power the denial of protection from removal. That discretion should be removed from the Bill, in accordance with Amendment 179.

Amendment 162 amends Clause 62, which would deny protection assistance and support to and allow the removal of a victim who is a “threat to public order”. This could impede the UK’s ability to investigate and prosecute human trafficking and slavery perpetrators. The anti-slavery commissioner has expressed grave concerns at the wide net of that provision, the potential denial of the recovery and reflection period to a considerable number of victims and the consequence that prosecution witnesses may be unable to build rapport with law enforcement and provide evidence.

In her letter to the Home Secretary of last September, which my noble friend Lord Paddick quoted earlier, the anti-slavery commissioner quoted data from Hope for Justice, which said that

“of their current live caseload, 29% of individuals have committed offences that would meet the criteria for exemption under public order grounds. A further 13% have committed wider offences that may/may not meet the criteria for a public order exemption and 3% have a conviction but the details of this are unknown.”

Up to 45% of this organisation’s case load have or appear to have convictions. Excluding all those people is really being kind to criminal trafficking gangs. She gave a case study:

“In 2018 a Romanian trafficker was convicted … under the Modern Slavery Act … having trafficked at least 15 people from Romania … He received a seven year sentence and … a Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Order … Of the 15 potential victims identified, two provided statements to support the police investigation. One of these witnesses, whose evidence was significant in securing the conviction, had three previous convictions in Romania all of which attracted sentences in excess of 12 months”.

If the Government want to exclude from protection these victims, who might have criminal offences on their record, that means we will get fewer prosecutions and convictions of the perpetrators of trafficking and slavery.

The JCHR proposes that Clause 62 should be amended so that only a serious and ongoing threat to public order takes a victim out of protection. In fact, due to failings in the criminal justice system, victims are often forced to commit offences, such as on cannabis farms. In a recent Strasbourg court case, the UK was found to have failed in its duty to protect such victims. To be in line with its protective obligations under the ECHR and ECAT, the Government should accept at least amendment of Clause 62. Hence Amendment 168 provides that a person should not be considered a threat to public order if they were compelled to commit an offence, and Amendments 165 to 167 tighten up the provision in the Bill in other ways. The bottom line, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Paddick and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is that Clauses 61 and 62 are pernicious and should be removed.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the article by the anti-slavery commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton, in the Times today. She mentions the Joint Committee on Human Rights and she concludes:

“Ministers have assured that decisions to remove support from victims will be made on a case-by-case basis suggesting infrequent use. But why frame legislation that appears to remove protection from such a wide cohort of individuals if that is not indeed the desire? There might be exceptional circumstances in which it is right to withhold support when there is a genuine, current and serious threat to public order, but the present bill goes far beyond this.”

She gives us a hint:

“Parliamentarians have the opportunity to address this—I hope that they take it.”

I hope we will take it in our vote on Report. That is a very powerful warning, I think, from the anti-slavery commissioner and I hope the Minister will tell me how seriously he takes it.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I support all these amendments but I will speak to Amendment 169, to which I have put my name. I will deal with two other people apart from the anti-slavery commissioner who said that her gravest concern lies with Clause 62 above all the other clauses in this part of the Bill.

The United Nations rapporteur said:

“We are concerned that Clause 62(3) would be in violation of the State’s obligation to ensure non-punishment of victims of … forms of slavery for any unlawful acts … that are a direct consequence of trafficking.”


That, of course, is exactly what the Modern Slavery Act says in relation to people who commit offences if they are done in the course of being a trafficked person. So far as children are concerned, if they are under 18, they cannot be responsible for acts that they have done under the coercion of being a trafficking victim.

Perhaps of more significance to the Government is the issue of prosecution. Caroline Haughey QC, who advises the Government and regularly prosecutes traffickers—with great success I am glad to say—has described this Bill as catastrophic. She is a very successful QC. She is very measured and “catastrophic”, to my mind, is the most unusual word for a sensible prosecuting QC to use. She goes on to warn of the risks of losing witnesses for prosecutions because they have been guilty of offences themselves. We do not have enough prosecutions. It is an extremely serious matter that we do not have enough, and this clause is certain, if it is left in its original state, to reduce the number of prosecutions that Caroline Haughey and other QCs are trying to do in the criminal justice system.

I think again the Government ought to bear in mind why so many people who are victims have criminal records. It is perfectly obvious—they are much easier to identify and traffic, children as well as adults. They are the sort of people the traffickers go for because they know they are much less likely to come voluntarily to the public eye. They need protection against having been trafficked just as much as anybody who has a clear record. I implore the Government to think very carefully about this effect on prosecutions and the fact that criminals are very likely to be trafficked people.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am delighted to follow the noble and learned Baroness. The Committee has benefited greatly from her insightful comments on the background. This is a particularly murky world about which we are talking. People are in an extremely vulnerable and unfortunate position, and they may well be preyed on and further exploited by the very people I applaud the Government for trying to target.

I will speak briefly to Amendments 160 and 163 in my name. Amendment 160 is the key amendment; again, it is a concern raised by the Law Society of Scotland, which is keen to ensure that these provisions be brought to account only in exceptional circumstances. The reasoning for this—which follows very well from the discussion we have heard in this debate—is that Clause 62 excludes from the national referral mechanism persons who have committed criminal offences as well as other offences relating to terrorism. It excludes those who have claimed to be victims of terrorism in bad faith. However, it appears to divide victims into the worthy and the unworthy. Surely the Government must explain their reasoning behind this. In my view, and that of the Law Society of Scotland, no one should be disqualified from being a victim of one crime because they have been a perpetrator of another—precisely for the reasons that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, gave us. Victims of trafficking could be criminalised for conduct relating to their trafficking. This is in breach of Article 26 of the Council of Europe trafficking convention. I cannot believe for a minute that this is the intention of the Minister or the Government in this regard.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to a recent court case; I do not know if it is the same one to which I will refer. A violation of Article 4 of the ECHR was recently found against the United Kingdom, in this regard, by the European Court of Human Rights in VCL and AN v the United Kingdom. For those who would like to research this further, the reference is application numbers 77587/12 and 74603/12.

I conclude with a question to the Minister. Does he not share my concern that the clause, as it stands and without reference to exceptional circumstances, introduces a high risk of a double punishment for those victims who have received convictions? Moreover, disqualifying certain victims from protection increases the prospect that they will be further exploited by organised criminal groups as they will be unable to access protection from the state.

[The Lord Bishop of Bristol]

My Lords, I have added my name to those of noble Lords who oppose Clause 62 standing part of the Bill. I echo remarks made by noble colleagues.

As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, just said, Clause 62 goes to an essential point of principle in the entire operation of how modern slavery protections ought to work. The proposal is that Clause 62 makes victimhood a conditional state. In fact, it sets up a division between worthy and unworthy victims, as the noble Baroness commented. This would be such a retrograde step. If we are serious about destroying the business model of modern slavery and identifying and prosecuting as many slavers as we can, we must find ways of incentivising and supporting all victims to come forwards. By excluding from support those who have acted in bad faith—a term for which I greatly welcome more clarity from the Minister on what it would mean—or those deemed a threat to public order, we are creating two categories of victim.

15:00

Over the road in the General Synod of the Church of England debate yesterday, there was a plea not to be naive. As was said, traffickers and modern slavers are not stupid. They know how to use criminal exploitation to trap people into criminal activity, to scare them into not approaching the police. We know this from work on the ground. When speaking to support charities and victims in my role as lead bishop on modern slavery, I have heard often that one of the most effective ways to keep victims in fear is to force them to commit crimes so that they will be criminalised if they come forward to the authorities.

Life for legislators—indeed, for everyone—would be much easier if there were nice, clear binaries: blameless victims and evil enslavers. The reality, as anyone who has worked on the ground with those trafficked through county lines and many other forms of criminal exploitation can attest, is that things are not that easy. People who have done bad things can and often do become victims of slavery. People who have become victims of slavery find themselves compelled to do bad things.

In opposing Clause 62, I am not suggesting that people should not be held responsible for their actions. They should, but as a society we have responsibilities too and one of those is to break the way in which modern slavers operate. Creating a two-tier system of victimhood will, I fear, strengthen it.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, my name is on Amendment 160A, which is from these Benches. I fear that we are rather in lipstick on pigs territory—a phrase used a good deal earlier in our deliberations on the Bill. Clause 62 refers a “threat to public order”, which is then explained as various terrorism offences. It says that the list is not exhaustive, and I recognise what the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, said about how non-exhaustive lists are dealt with in the courts and that the longer lists are, the more rigorously they are dealt with. Our amendment refers instead to a threat to national security.

My noble friend Lord Paddick also has his name on the Clause 62 stand part notice and mine is on Amendment 169. I do not want to take the time of the Committee by repeating what has been said, very clearly, about activity “attributable” to being a victim of slavery or trafficking.

In the previous group of amendments, the Minister referred to an ability to recollect. I think, from other things he has said, in a sympathetic manner, he would agree that very often there is also, among victims, an inability to express—it is not just the inability to recollect. It might be worth saying—I am not sure it has been said before—that there is even more difficulty than in disclosing that one has been a victim of forced labour in disclosing that one has been a victim of sexual exploitation.

I agree with others about words such as “worthy” and “unworthy”. I noted “deserving” and “undeserving” —here we are again—like “deserving” and “undeserving” refugees and asylum seekers; that distinction is replicated here.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, again, as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I shall speak very briefly. I should say how much I appreciate the contributions made by my noble friend Lord Coaker, by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who is on the Joint Committee with me, and by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in her very powerful remarks.

Many years ago—if I may tell a little anecdote—I heard of a certain conversation that took place in the Home Office when an official was told by her boss to justify a certain position. The official said, “But that is indefensible”. Her boss said, “Yes, of course—defending the defensible is easy. You’re paid to defend the indefensible”. I say that as a word of comfort to the Minister, who is defending the indefensible. He knows it, we know it and the officials know it—and I suppose he has to do it, unless he does what the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, did and decides to distance himself from it.

I will say this very briefly. I find it hard to remember, and keep needing to remind myself, that we are talking about Part 5 of a Bill about modern slavery. Some of these issues are so remote from the rest of the Bill, as has already been said. The amendments to which I have put my name are concerned about a number of things. One is public safety and security. The amendments seek to get the right balance between public safety and security, which of course is important, and the rights of individuals who seek safety in this country. I contend that the Government, particularly in Clause 62, have got the balance quite wrong.

As the right reverend Prelate has already said, some of the people who are victims of traffickers or slavery are under threat; they are fearful, and the fact is that some of them at least will have been compelled to take up the position that they have taken up. We should respect that. These are frightened and anxious people, who are not secure and who do not know this country at all well. They may have been in this country for some time, or they may not have been, but they do not feel all that secure. We have to be sensitive to their situation, and I contend that what the Government are doing in this section, particularly in Clause 62, is to show insensitivity to some very vulnerable people—which is why I hope they will get rid of this provision, which does not make any sense at all.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, in opening from the Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, made a number of points in relation to the position of the Government in relation to the one-nation Conservative tradition, if I may put it like that. I will preface my remarks to the Committee by saying that, just as with our then coalition partners the Conservatives were in the forefront of dealing with the issue of modern slavery, so we were, hundreds of years ago, in dealing with the issue of slavery, as it then stood. Where slavery exists, Conservatives will always be found in the forefront of any attempts to confront it.

In relation to Clause 61, there is currently no policy on whether, or in what circumstances, individuals should or should not receive additional recovery periods under the national referral mechanism. Clause 61 addresses this gap by introducing a power to withhold additional recovery periods where an individual has already benefited from a recovery period and the further reported exploitation happened prior to the previous referral into the national referral mechanism, unless appropriate circumstances are set forth. This is not an attempt to create two tiers, however it may be read; rather, it is an attempt to put into legislation appropriate controls against misuse, where that misuse takes place.

Amendment 158 seeks to remove this power if any of the incidents of exploitation occurred when the individual was under 18 years of age. I seek first to reassure the Committee that the provision may be applied only when the further positive reasonable grounds decision arises from things done wholly before the previous reasonable grounds decision was made. Therefore, this power does not apply in cases of re-trafficking.

From the Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, like other noble Lords at an earlier stage, raised the question of why these provisions appear on the face of an immigration Bill. It is because there are overlaps between immigration and modern slavery, which the Bill recognises and seeks to address, but it also goes further in providing clarification on people’s entitlement.

As I said in relation to the previous grouping, and as I am sure we will all have occasion to say again, the complex nature of exploitation, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, identified in his opening speech and at other times in this debate, and the potential resulting safeguarding needs, particularly for children, are recognised by the Government. This clause is designed to allow for discretion in how decision-makers apply the disqualification, ensuring that the welfare of children will be taken into account. This discretion is an important part of our needs-based approach to the provision of support, and in the circumstances there is no need for the carve-out that the amendment proposes.

Moving on to Amendment 159, while we understand the intention behind this amendment, the existing discretionary element strikes the right balance between allowing decision-makers flexibility to grant additional recovery periods and preventing the misuse of the NRM protections to which I referred. Decision-makers will be able to consider the vulnerabilities and circumstances of the individual.

Turning to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in relation to Clause 62, as noble Lords have outlined, ECAT envisages that recovery periods should be withheld on grounds of public order and improper claims. However, ECAT does not include a definition of “public order” and, to date, that omission has hindered our ability to disqualify suitable individuals in practice. The question was posed of whether the provision as it stands might impede operational decisions in relation to prosecution, but I submit that these decisions would be taken at all times in relation to that developing understanding of the pressures and difficulties. I fully appreciate that I am understating those things by using those expressions. Those pressures and difficulties are upon persons who are victims of modern slavery or human trafficking.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister. In Clause 62, the phrase “bad faith” seems extraordinarily ambiguous. Can he clarify that? What jurisprudence does this phrase come from and on what basis will it be interpreted in the courts?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I was proposing to deal later with the expression “bad faith” and its source, but, to help him at this stage, it is not drawn from any comparable legislation, nor from the authority of the courts. We do not hark back to that. Rather, the nature of the problems that must be confronted in relation to this is sufficiently protean and diverse that a need was identified to arrive at a broad expression in the Bill, and “bad faith” was the language selected after consideration among Ministers and officials to represent that.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I now realise that he has now moved on from Clause 61 and is talking about Clause 62. I was wondering whether he was going to answer my point about incompatibility with the ECHR memorandum. That says that

“where the person’s previous conclusive grounds decision was negative, the Secretary of State will be required to make a new conclusive grounds decision on the new referral, and the person will be protected from removal in the meantime, ensuring compliance with Article 10(2) of ECAT.”

However, you are not protecting them from removal in the meantime under Article 61, as far as I can see, so how is the Bill compatible with the ECHR memorandum?

15:15

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

If the noble Baroness will bear with me, I will seek to get an answer to that question that I can deliver in the course of the debate—doubtless the Committee will remind me if I have not reverted to the noble Baroness by the time I sit down.

Amendments 160 and 162 do not define “exceptional circumstances” or “serious and ongoing” threat in relation to withholding protection from removal. As such, our view is that they would risk undermining the clarity which this clause seeks to provide and would make the power very difficult to use, meaning that potentially dangerous individuals would continue to receive the generous protections afforded by the NRM.

On Amendment 160A, Clause 62 specifies that disqualification applies when in the interests of national security, but it is right that the Government should also be able to withhold protections from individuals who pose a threat to public order more broadly, including where they have been convicted of serious criminal offences or have made a claim in bad faith, to use the expression that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred me to. I say that “bad faith” is appropriate in these circumstances because it is so broad and because it comprises so many aspects.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I want to intervene briefly on the “good faith” and “bad faith” point, in case it is of assistance to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others. Concepts such as “good faith” and bad faith” are commonly used in civil and commercial matters; we understand that. In contracting matters, it is incumbent on parties to act in good faith, subject to the deal they have done with each other. Why I think the Committee is so concerned about what the Minister called the protean nature of the phrase here is that this is human rights protection, and we cannot afford to be protean or vague in the same way that we can when we are talking about how we enter into a contract. This is life and death.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

The point I was seeking to make by that expression is, I think, the same one that my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar made earlier, when he spoke about this—it is as familiar to the noble Baroness as a practising barrister as it is to me, and I think it was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. If we have a list that sets out heads A to E, and then counsel attempts to rely on point F which is not otherwise comprehended, or not specifically enumerated but which may be comprehended within the expression “or any other circumstance”, that always—as my noble friend Lord Wolfson said—places counsel at a disadvantage.

On the threats, or potential threats, and the potential scope for abuse which lie within the power of a person seeking to exploit and make a false application under these circumstances, what we are seeking to do is to identify a phrase or term which is sufficiently wide to encompass all those potential points. Noble Lords in the Committee have identified, under reference to the traffickers and criminals whom it is the intention of the entire Committee to thwart, their cunning, resilience and resourcefulness in finding ways to slip between the cracks of aspects of legislation.

Amendment 169 does not provide a definition of “public order”. I reassure the Committee that we adhere to relevant provisions in our international obligations but it is unnecessary to specify that in legislation, and we are satisfied that the current definition of public order complies with ECAT.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering proposes that we replace the “bad faith” provision with one of “improper claims”. That proposal can be addressed in conjunction with Amendment 163, which seeks to remove the bad faith provision entirely. Another reason for the expression “bad faith”, and its breadth, is to avoid inadvertently excluding administrative mistakes made when submitting claims, which may be interpreted as falling under “improper claims”. We believe that “bad faith” is the appropriate language.

In answer to submissions made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, under Amendments 169, 161 and 164, which seek to exclude children from this clause, ECAT does not specify an age limit. We deem it important that the United Kingdom maintains the full scope while ensuring that all decisions to withhold the protections of the NRM are balanced against our priority to safeguard children. The proposal set out in these amendments would create, in effect, a two-tiered system that could encourage those looking to misuse the NRM protections to provide falsified information regarding their age. We all sat late enough the other night in relation to the age amendment provisions elsewhere in the Bill for me not to wish to go into that area again, but we are concerned lest the proposals in the amendment provide an opportunity for persons to provide falsified information.

In relation to Amendment 168, the Government are aware that potential and confirmed victims of modern slavery may already have been convicted of serious offences or be involved in terrorism-related activity. I make it clear that neither the additional recovery period nor the public order disqualifications can be taken as being a blanket disqualification. Any decisions relating to disqualifications will be taken on an individual basis, taking into account the individual’s circumstances and vulnerabilities. This includes consideration as to the nature of any criminal exploitation that may have been made of them and the need to safeguard individuals. We think it is right that further details of how to apply this discretionary element should be set out in guidance for decision-makers rather than being placed in the Bill. That will give the Government the flexibility to meet the needs of victims and respond to changing patterns of criminal activity that may seek opportunities to misuse the NRM.

We do not consider that Clause 62 will present a barrier to people who have had convictions and prevent them coming forward, because of that discretionary approach and because there will not be a blanket disqualification on the basis of public order. All of us—the whole Committee, I am sure—want victims of modern slavery to continue to come forward for identification and support, irrespective of their personal circumstances or the circumstances in which they came to be exploited. However, we maintain that it is right that the Government can remove individuals who pose a threat to public order from the protections and support that the NRM affords.

Together with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, was concerned lest such victims did not come forward if they had criminal convictions. First responders should still always refer victims into the national referral mechanism, in line with modern slavery statutory guidance, even where the individual has had a previous recovery period or has a criminal conviction. Decision-makers trained in the field will then carefully consider each individual case and take into account specific vulnerabilities and the needs of each individual, again on a case-by-case basis.

The recovery period may be withheld following a reasonable grounds decision, and the rights that flow from a conclusive grounds decision may also be withheld at that stage if relevant disqualifications apply. I emphasise that we will carefully consider each individual case to ensure that people who genuinely need protection and support will receive it. I reiterate that it is right that we should be able to withhold rights from individuals where appropriate—for example, from those who pose a national security risk to the United Kingdom.

I return to the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in relation to compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. The protections of the NRM will be withheld in accordance with Clause 61 only when so to do would be compliant with our international obligations—

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I am glad to hear that the Government want to comply with our international obligations—some of us feel that that is not entirely evident from the Bill—but I was asking about compatibility with the European convention against trafficking. Clause 61 allows “a competent authority” to remove someone even when a conclusive grounds decision is pending. I am sorry to repeat myself, but the European Convention on Human Rights memorandum, produced presumably by the Home Office for the Bill, says at paragraph 76.d:

“the Secretary of State will be required to make a new conclusive grounds decision on the new referral, and the person will be protected from removal in the meantime, ensuring compliance with Article 10(2)”.

That is not what Clause 61 does; it allows the Government to remove the person. They are not “protected from removal” pending a new conclusive grounds decision, so the ECHR memorandum and the Bill are in direct contradiction. Can the Minister take further advice and answer that point? If he cannot do so today, I am sure that he will be able to write to me. I am pretty sure that this was identified by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is why we wanted to change “must” determine the person’s removal to “may”, so that there is wiggle room that might be in compliance with ECAT. On the face of it, I cannot see that this provision is compliant, notwithstanding the assertion in the memorandum that it is.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

The noble Baroness graciously affords me the possibility of replying perhaps in more detail and later. Unless I have further information to provide to her, I propose to take that course. I am obliged to her for her consideration.

In relation to how to assess whether a person is involved in terrorism-related activity or is otherwise a national security concern, the Government have extensive experience of assessing these things, together with our operational partners, and using these assessments to inform executive decision-making.

Whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity is a crucial part of consideration for public order disqualification. Amendment 165 would weaken the United Kingdom’s ability to withhold protections from people of terrorism concern, and we therefore consider that it would increase the risk to the national security of the UK.

Regarding Amendment 166, NRM referrals for foreign national offenders and foreign nationals held on remand are rising, with an average of 85 per month for the first five months of 2021, compared to 19 per month in 2018. It is right that foreign nationals who have been convicted of the serious offences referred to in Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 should be included within scope for consideration of the public order disqualification. This ensures that we will have a clear definition provided for in legislation to support decisions.

15:30

Finally, referring to Amendment 164A, I reassure the Committee that the Government are committed to identifying possible victims promptly and providing needs-based support that we hope will aid their recovery. This clause is in line with ECAT, and as such we consider that the requirement to make a conclusive grounds decision can fall away in the event of disqualification on grounds of public order or improper claims.

We will set out the detail of matters in guidance, but again I assure the Committee that trained decision-makers will consider carefully the full circumstances of each individual case, consulting with relevant stakeholders and considering all the relevant information, including weighing national security considerations against whether any potential interference with protected rights is proportionate.

I omitted to recognise the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol’s contribution to the matter of “bad faith”. I hope that she will forgive that omission.

I hope, for the reasons outlined, that noble Lords will be content not to press their amendments at this stage.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his typically courteous and thoughtful reply, and the way in which he attempted to answer every question put to him by noble Lords across the Chamber. We are very grateful and that was well received by everyone. I believe, however, that there is a very real problem at the heart of the Bill, with respect to Clause 61 and particularly Clause 62, notwithstanding his reassuring words.

It remains on the face of the Bill that an identified potential victim can be disqualified from the section if they are a threat to public order, or they have given information in bad faith. As noble Lords have said, there is no real clarification, notwithstanding the Minister’s response, on what a threat to public order means. We can see from what has been said, by many of the organisations that made representations, including lawyers and the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, that a threat to public order can include very minor offences. The Minister says, “Don’t worry, the decision-makers understand that Clause 62 does not apply if they are minor offences”, but that really is not good enough. It should be on the face of the Bill; it should be clearer, in primary legislation, what a “threat to public order” means—and indeed “acting in bad faith”. What on earth does “acting in bad faith” mean? That is usually something people use when they cannot think of anything else—“That’ll do, that will be something we can say because it encompasses everything.” It is not good enough, in primary legislation, to legislate in that way.

The purpose of the amendments that have been tabled, and the debate that has been had in Committee, will cause the Government to have to think again and, at the very least, be clearer in what they actually mean with respect to where they are going to disqualify somebody from protection when they are an unidentified potential victim.

The last point I will very quickly make is that there is real issue with respect to children. Both this Minister and the Minister who responded to the earlier groups say again, “Don’t worry, there is nothing to worry about. We understand the particular needs of children”. I say again that in virtually every area of government a distinction is made between adults and children, for obvious reasons. It beggars belief that it is not done anywhere in this Bill. We will come back to this at Report, but I thank the Minister for his reply and, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 158 withdrawn.

Amendment 159 not moved.

Clause 61 agreed.

Clause 62: Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection

Amendments 160 to 169 not moved.

Clause 62 agreed.

Clause 63: Identified potential victims etc in England and Wales: assistance and support

Amendment 169A

Moved by

[Lord McColl of Dulwich]

169A: Clause 63, page 66, line 10, leave out from “their” to end of line 12 and insert “physical, psychological and social recovery or to prevent their re-trafficking in accordance with Article 12 of the Trafficking Convention.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would define the objective of assistance and support in line with Article 12 of the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, I should declare an interest in that I presented the original anti-trafficking and anti-slavery Bill as a Private Member’s Bill to your Lordships, and your Lordships very kindly passed it in all its stages, thanks to the support of the whole House. I then sent it to the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, who made it a government Bill and made it comprehensive, with the support of many people in both Houses.

I wish to speak to the amendments in my name to Clauses 63 and 64, on support and leave to remain respectively. While I believe that issues of modern slavery should not be in an immigration Bill, we must nevertheless use the opportunity to improve the care provided to approximately 100,000 victims of modern slavery in the UK. These individuals deserve the opportunity to rebuild their lives. We have the potential to give them the support needed to ensure that each victim becomes a survivor.

Your Lordships will know that I have long argued, through my Private Member’s Bills, that support for victims in England and Wales during the so-called recovery period should be statutory, as it has been in Northern Ireland and Scotland since 2015. I very much welcome the Government addressing this matter at last in Clause 63. However, I have three concerns about Clause 63 which my Amendments 169A, 170 and 170A address. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Paddick and Lord Coaker, for their support for these amendments.

First, in Clause 63, proposed new subsection (2) of the new clause restricts support only to that necessary to assist with recovery from the conduct that resulted in the “positive reasonable grounds” decision in question. This is more restrictive than in Northern Ireland and Scotland. How do the Government intend to identify the harm caused directly by exploitation? Why have they decided to restrict the support in this way?

Article 12 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, known as ECAT, requires states to provide various support to assist victims in their physical, psychological and social recovery. ECAT does not restrict support and assistance to only those matters that relate to a person’s immediate exploitation. Amendment 169A would amend the wording so that it is in line with ECAT.

Secondly, Clause 63 is not clear on the scope of support, and Amendment 170A would define the types of assistance and support to be provided in line with ECAT obligations. The Government said in another place that a list of what support should be available is not needed, even though such a list does exist in Scotland and Northern Ireland. While individual victims will have different needs and requirements, there still needs to be a framework, which Amendment 170A would provide. The Joint Committee on Human Rights asked whether the support provided will cover all the elements required by Article 12. I look forward to hearing confirmation from the Minister that it will.

My third concern is the lack of support once a person is identified as a victim, something I have been campaigning on with the support of the Free for Good movement, a coalition of 27 organisations which believe that long-term support is essential to a victim’s recovery. Without it, already vulnerable individuals are at risk of homelessness, destitution or even re-trafficking, as has been mentioned.

I welcome the assurance given by the Government on Report in another place, and reiterated here at Second Reading, that 12 months’ support will be provided to confirmed victims in England and Wales. However, to date the Government have not brought forward an amendment to ensure that this support is on a statutory footing, nor set out any details of what that might involve, saying instead that the details will be in guidance. The support needs to be more than an extension of current arrangements under the Government’s recovery needs assessment.

Amendment 170 would put the Government’s commitment to 12 months’ support in the Bill. The cross-party support for this amendment is both indicative and representative of an understanding across the House that long-term statutory support is vital in order to assist victims of modern slavery in their recovery. The problem with it not being in the Bill is that it gives the Government what one could describe as wriggle room. We do not know when the guidance will be issued, nor what it will say; by the time we do, we will have missed a valuable opportunity to make a significant difference to victims.

Clause 63 already puts support during the recovery period on a statutory footing. Amendment 170 is a simple extension to Clause 63 to put in a support provision after a person has been confirmed as a victim of modern slavery. I urge your Lordships to support Amendment 170 to ensure recovery, prevent re-trafficking and enable victims to work with the police to restrain the perpetrators responsible for their abuse. I sincerely hope the Minister will be able to tell the House that he will be tabling an amendment on this matter on Report.

I turn to my Amendments to Clause 64. The Government are putting the current discretionary leave-to-remain criteria on a statutory footing. In principle, that is welcome—except that, in doing so, they have made them narrower than the current guidance. We are taking one step forward but two steps back. I also want noble Lords to realise that very few victims who apply actually get that leave, so Clause 64 falls short of what victims really need. The Government have already recognised the need for confirmed victims of modern slavery to receive 12 months’ support. However, those individuals need leave to remain in order to access that vital support.

My Amendment 170B would ensure that anyone receiving support after being confirmed as a victim of modern slavery would be granted temporary leave to remain. My Amendment 171A would ensure that the leave would be for the length of time that support is being provided or for at least 12 months if granted under Clause 64. Without these amendments, long-term support is a mirage. It is something that confirmed victims who are non-UK nationals desperately need but, without immigration status, cannot access. They will also help the Government achieve their aim of increasing the prosecutions and convictions of perpetrators of modern slavery. Without clarity about their immigration status, victims are fearful, potentially subject to re-trafficking, and hesitant about engaging with the police. Amendments 170B and 171A would enable the Government to be firm on criminals who are profiteering off the exploitation and abuse of victims.

15:45

The Government have said that individuals abuse the system and make fraudulent claims about being a victim of modern slavery to avoid deportation. It is crucial that one understands that the individuals who would be receiving leave to remain are those who have gone through the Government’s own processes and been confirmed by the Home Office as genuine victims of modern slavery. These are not individuals abusing the system, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has already mentioned. I urge noble Lords to support Amendments 170B and 171A.

I also support Amendment 171B from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and Amendments 171 and 172 from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. These amendments would bring a better outcome for victims.

In closing, I urge your Lordships to recognise that 12 months of statutory support, and 12 months’ leave to remain to access that support, are vital to enabling a victim of modern slavery to recover and to engage with the police. I will quote my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, who told me the other day about a Zulu exhortation: “Vukuzenzele”, which noble Lords will know from their Zulu studies means “Just get on and do it.” The Government should just get on with providing confirmed victims the support and leave to remain which we already know they need. I shall listen carefully to the Minister’s response and will come back with further amendments on Report depending on what she says. I thank all those who will be taking part in this debate. I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, with his usual clarity, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has introduced his amendments to Clauses 63 and 64. I regard it as one of the privileges of serving in your Lordships’ House to have become a friend of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, over these last 20 years. I not only deeply admire everything he has done on the issue of human trafficking but have seen first-hand some of the extraordinary work he has done with Mercy Ships, where he has given so much of his life and time as a notable surgeon. I have no hesitation today in echoing the remarks he has made to your Lordships’ Committee. I am not sure I can echo the Zulu remarks he quoted, but I think Nelson Mandela once quoted a Zulu saying about “ubuntu”, meaning “brotherhood”, that

“we are only people because of other people.”

In many respects, that goes to the heart of what we are trying to express in these debates and amendments today.

Statutory support for victims in England and Wales during the time they are in the national referral mechanism—the recovery period—which was the subject of Amendments 156A and 156B, which I spoke to earlier, is long overdue. We are seven years behind Northern Ireland and Scotland, and I welcome the Government catching up with the rest of the UK. I would like to say with the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, in hearing distance that I deeply admire what he managed to achieve in Northern Ireland, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say about his Amendment 171B, which, again, I associate myself with. Indeed, I support all the amendments in this group.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the current version of the statutory guidance on victim support in England and Wales, which says:

“The Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract operates as a bridge, to lift adult victims out of a situation of exploitation and to set them on a pathway to rebuilding their lives. As such, it is important that no support provided through the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract prevents potential victims or victims from accessing support they would otherwise be entitled to receive.”


The statement about what a victim is entitled to receive goes straight to the heart of Amendments 169A and 170A.

Under the Bill, what do the Government intend to provide in terms of support? The noble Lord, Lord McColl, said that without support, the Bill simply becomes a mirage—a good metaphor to use. What are the Government going to do to provide support during the recovery period? Will the support be in line with Article 12 of the European convention? Both Ministers talked earlier about the importance of compatibility in these areas. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, we seem to pick and choose what we want to have compatibility with and what we do not.

The frequently referred to and admirable Joint Committee on Human Rights recently published its review of Part 5 and highlighted that

“clause 63 (new section 50A MSA) does not specify details as to what ‘any necessary assistance and support’ should include, leading to some ambiguity”—

a word I referenced earlier in connection with being in good faith—

“as to whether clause 63 (new section 50A MSA) will indeed adequately give effect to the UK’s obligations under Article 12 ECAT to provide the types of assistance specified in that Article.”


It is worth recording in Hansard what the Committee said:

“The Secretary of State should confirm whether ‘necessary assistance and support’ will include all of the types of assistance listed in Article 12 ECAT”.


We will all listen closely to the Minister’s response to these amendments and specifically on that point about whether the support will be in line with Article 12 of the European convention.

I have also co-signed Amendment 170. As I have already said, the stated objective of the Government’s support to victims is

“to lift adult victims out of a situation of exploitation and to set them on a pathway to rebuilding their lives.”

Who could disagree with that? All the evidence from those working with victims is that this goal is far from completed when a person is confirmed as a victim of modern slavery by the Government. To continue on the pathway to recovery, as the Government themselves have acknowledged, a victim needs much longer support.

The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has been making that case for many years in your Lordships’ House and I have been happy on previous occasions to give him support. 1am glad that he has taken the opportunity provided by the Bill today. If the Minister cannot agree to incorporate this now, will he tell the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and Members of your Lordships’ Committee that, when the putative legislation that was referred to earlier in this area is brought forward, it will at least be attended to then? I am glad that the Government have recognised the need, but they should now act to bring their commitment into a concrete reality.

I also want to touch briefly on the amendments to Clause 64 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, which seek to give victims who are eligible for support leave to remain. It is not just the right thing to do for these individuals, it makes policy sense to ensure that we are able to bring perpetrators to justice. It has been said again and again, by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and others who have re-emphasised this throughout today’s debate. Without evidence from victims, cases are much harder to prosecute. Here is an interesting point: it also makes economic sense.

A 2019 report from the University of Nottingham, which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will be well aware of, on an earlier version of the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, showed that his Bill was “value for money”. I hope that the Minister’s officials have drawn that report to his attention, so I ask him: why would the Government not support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and give this vital support to victims of modern slavery?

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his kind remarks. For victims of modern slavery, escaping from their exploitation is only the beginning of their journey towards recovery. I will direct my remarks today to Amendment 171B in my name, which would assist victims on this journey.

I have been astounded by the individuals whom I have come across over the years, particularly those who I had the privilege of meeting during the passage of my Private Member’s Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly who have been victims of modern slavery in this country. These victims have experienced extreme exploitation and abuse in this country yet have shown commendable fortitude and strength in their determination to recover from their ordeal. When I consider Part 5, and in particular Clause 64, it is those individuals I think of. It concerns me that Clause 64, if unamended, will make the leave to remain criteria narrower and, in doing so, make vital support for survivors even more inaccessible.

Clause 64 will impact victims of modern slavery across the UK, yet there has been no impact assessment published to date—at least, I have not had sight of it—on how many victims will be granted leave to remain under the Bill, compared to the current numbers. I hope the Minister can address why this is the case and provide a timeframe for when we can expect to see one.

Previously, I had the opportunity to meet Anna, a young Romanian girl who was kidnapped here in London, trafficked to Galway and then moved to Belfast to be sold into the sex trade. This young girl was moved from pillar to post, to be exploited in one place then another. The only consistency she knew was exploitation. When victims like Anna escape from their situations of exploitation, they need stability and certainty as they start their recovery and begin to work through their trauma.

I am concerned that whilst Clause 64 puts discretionary leave to remain measures on a statutory footing, in the process of doing so the Government have made the criteria much narrower than current guidance. In particular, Clause 64(4) would prevent leave to remain being granted to a confirmed victim on the grounds of their need for support for their recovery, if they could receive that support elsewhere—even when the alternative country is not a signatory to the European trafficking convention. The Government have also not set out which countries without ECAT would be acceptable. This restriction is likely to affect EU citizens who have recently become entitled to automatic consideration for discretionary leave if they have no other right to remain, since the Secretary of State is likely to argue that these citizens could receive support within the EU. It sounds very much as if the Government are unfairly trying to skirt their moral duties and responsibilities to these victims. This goes to the point that, contrary to what the Government have said, this Bill is not fair for victims of modern slavery.

Amendment 171B in my name would ensure greater stability by removing the criteria of not granting leave to remain if assistance could be provided or compensation sought in another country. Without this amendment victims such as Anna, upon exiting their situation of exploitation, could find themselves without leave to remain and instead relocated to another country where they may not know anybody, speak the language or understand the customs. This will be disorientating, unsettling and frightening, and it will compound their vulnerability to re-trafficking.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and Sir lain Duncan Smith MP in the other place on the need for 12 months’ leave to remain to ensure that all confirmed victims can receive support, as proposed in the noble Lord’s Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill. I put on record my support for Amendments 170B and 171A in the name of the noble Lord. While Amendment 170 to Clause 63 in the noble Lord’s name applies only to England and Wales, I am pleased to see that steps are being taken to provide statutory support to confirmed victims in Northern Ireland. Through Section 18(9) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, statutory support is already available to victims with a positive conclusive grounds decision on a discretionary basis.

16:00

I want to draw attention to the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly are currently considering the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill. In Committee, it has been recommended that support be given to victims

“following a positive Conclusive Grounds decision to enhance protection from re-trafficking and assist in their recovery and engagement with the criminal justice agencies to help secure increased convictions.”

Amendments will be debated next week. The recognition of the principle of the need for long-term support for victims is greatly encouraging and I will be watching closely as this Bill progresses through the Assembly. Perhaps Westminster could learn from the Assembly which, in the early stages of deliberation, acknowledged that 12 months’ support should be in legislation; there is no discussion of this being put only in guidance.

However, should the Assembly agree, this statutory support will be limited to those confirmed victims who are British citizens or who have leave to remain, as is the case with the statutory discretionary leave provision under Section 18(9). It will be devastating for non-UK-national victims if the hands of the Northern Ireland Assembly are tied in the provision of long-term support to them because the Government will not grant the requisite leave to remain for them to access this vital long-term support. Flourish, a charity in Northern Ireland which supports victims of modern slavery once they have exited the NRM, has said that its objective is

“empowering survivors so that they can take back control of their own lives”.

That is what long-term support is all about. Narrowing the criteria for grants of leave and failing to provide 12 months’ leave to remain to confirmed victims without immigration status make it even more difficult for victims to take back control of their lives and become survivors.

We also know that it takes time for victims to trust authorities and begin to engage with police investigations; this does not happen overnight. Without 12 months’ leave to remain, victims will not have the stability or consistency in their lives to begin to comprehend their abuse, disclose it and in time start to engage with police investigations. Without Amendments 170B and 171A, convictions will thus remain low and the perpetrators of this heinous crime will continue to go unpunished.

I would also like to put on record my support for Amendment 171 in the name of my noble friend Lord Dubs. As it stands, Clause 64 also narrows the criteria for granting leave to remain to what is considered necessary to assist in the recovery from harm directly caused by this exploitation. The Joint Committee on Human Rights raised this issue in its report of 15 December, saying

“It would seem that clause 64(2)(a) is drawn a little more narrowly than the obligation in Article 14(1)(a) ECAT. ‘Personal situation’, could, for example, relate to family relationships and support networks in the UK or other factors relevant to the ‘personal situation’ of the victim that would not be covered by clause 64(2)(a).”

It recommended that the wording reflect the Article 14 obligations.

The Government are acting as an obstacle, rather than an aide, when it comes to the provision of support to confirmed victims of modern slavery in Northern Ireland and the prosecution of offenders across the UK. Victims need a stable pathway which equips them to recover from their exploitation and not be defined by it. We must keep working to ensure that the UK is known as a hostile place for traffickers, where this exploitation will not be tolerated and will not go unpunished.

Perhaps before I sit down I should say that it may not be possible for me to hear the Minister’s response as I have to be back in Northern Ireland this evening and the time on my boarding pass is getting closer by the second. I apologise in advance if that is the case.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick has his name to Amendment 170. I know that he—I join him in this—is always pleased to have an opportunity to support the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich. Given that we are now past 4 pm, which, in the terminology of this House, was to be the lunch hour, I will not say anything more on this amendment. I hope that noble Lords can read between the lines.

Similarly, I particularly support Amendment 171A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for reasons to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred.

Finally, when I bumped into the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, the other day, I said, “I don’t know what you’re going to say but I’ll support you”. He said, “I thought you would”.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, we have been quicker than I anticipated but what my noble friend said is true; I must admit that I am starving.

I will speak to Amendments 171 and 172 from the JCHR, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. They aim to remove the worst of Clause 64. Leave to remain is important for victims who are vulnerable to destitution and further exploitation without welfare benefits and other entitlements but, according to the anti-slavery commissioner, the number of victims being granted discretionary leave is very low. In 2015, it was 123. In 2019, it was 70. In the first three months of 2020, it was only eight; we do not have statistics for the whole of 2020-21.

Being granted leave can improve mental health by offering stability and thus a chance of recovery, but the equivalent reference to assistance and support in the Modern Slavery Act reads “physical or psychological harm”; that includes social harm. This Bill would put the law out of line with that and raise real doubts about compatibility with Article 14 of ECAT, which uses the phrase

“necessary owing to their personal situation”.

That is wider than what is in Clause 64(2)(a), which is why I commend Amendment 171 to the Committee. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, refer to the JCHR’s report; he also mentioned the importance of family relationships.

Amendment 172 aims to rectify the omission from Clause 64 of any consideration of the best interests of the child so as to make it compatible with ECAT and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I seem to have mixed up my notes; I am sorry about that because I will now go back to Amendment 171.

In a case last year, the High Court held that refusing to grant discretionary leave while a slavery victim’s asylum application was being processed violated Article 14 of the European Convention on Action against Trafficking. It appears that, before amendments were made in the other place, Clause 64(2)(a) included a reference to the victim’s social well-being as well as their physical and mental health. However, it was removed on Report. Can the Minister explain why? Would the Government like to rectify this omission in the Bill regarding personal, situational and social harm so as to make me, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the JCHR very happy?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, in the interests of time, let me just say respectfully to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, whose amendments I have signed, that I very much support him and the arguments and points that he made so well. We look forward to the Minister’s response. I pay tribute to the doughty work the noble Lord has done over a number of years to try to move the Government in what many of us regard as a simple and sensible way forward. Let us hope.

I shall speak to my Amendment 171AA. Clause 64 provides for limited leave to remain

“if the Secretary of State considers it is necessary for the purpose of (a) assisting the person in their recovery from any physical or psychological harm … (b) enabling the person to seek compensation”—

unless this can be done outside the UK

“or (c) enabling the person to co-operate”

with law enforcement. The standard, however, does not meet the UK’s obligation to children under the Council of Europe’s Convention on Action against Trafficking. Article 14.2 of ECAT specifies that in the case of children, residence permits

“shall be issued in accordance with the best interests of the child.”

Paragraph 186 of the Explanatory Report to ECAT explains that

“the child’s best interests take precedence”.

Amendment 171AA, which is a probing amendment, simply asks why the Government cannot include leave to remain where children are protected and where it is in the best interest of the child.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, in consideration of the flight of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, I start by addressing Amendment 171B. ECAT sets clear parameters around when a signatory state is obliged to grant a residence permit to confirmed victims, which is where it considers that the stay is necessary either due to the confirmed victim’s personal situation or for the purpose of their co-operation with the competent authorities in an investigation or criminal proceedings. The Government have gone further than this and provided for a grant of leave not only on both of these bases, but also where it is necessary to enable a confirmed victim to seek compensation in respect of their exploitation.

A temporary leave provision is deliberately designed to allow for leave to be provided for as long as needed, where appropriate. It will be considered on a case-by-case basis and does not set an arbitrary time period. To specify a length of leave does not follow our overall approach of having a truly needs-based approach to addressing victim support. If it is necessary for leave to be granted for longer than 12 months in order to pursue a thorough investigation, or where an individual’s personal circumstances require it, leave can and should be granted.

I turn next to Amendments 169A, 170 and 170A. In Clause 63 we have sought to define the support entitlement during the recovery period for potential victims following a positive reasonable-grounds decision. Amendment 169A, however, would remove clarity on what these terms mean for victims and decision-makers and reduce the effectiveness of the clause in supporting victims. Our approach to the wording of Clause 63 has been chosen specifically to provide more detail on the circumstances in which support is provided, while being in line with our international obligations. Our approach is not to go into detail on the types of support provided for in legislation, as Amendment 170A suggests, but to do this in guidance, the purpose being to ensure flexibility in our approach in future, so this can be tailored to victims’ needs as our understanding of trauma develops. I refer your Lordships to remarks made earlier in the debate that understanding the impact and the effect of trauma on individuals is an ongoing and developing thing.

Further to this, and in response to a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, where necessary, all those who receive a positive conclusive-grounds decision and are in need of tailored support will receive appropriate individualised support for a minimum of 12 months. We committed to this in the other place and will consider where and how this commitment is delivered to ensure that it delivers best for victims. More details will be provided in guidance or in future modern slavery legislation, should parliamentary time allow. My noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich has been given that assurance by the Home Office Minister. The Home Office and, in particular, my noble friend Lady Williams are keen to continue working with the noble Lord on the implementation of this policy.

16:15

We appreciate the push to put this into legislation at the earliest opportunity, but we do not agree that this Bill, with its focus on immigration is the most appropriate place to do so. As such, given the commitment made in the other place, we do not consider Amendment 170 necessary, and I assure my noble friend that this is not an attempt to wriggle out of our commitment.

I turn next to Amendments 170B, 171A, 171, 171AA and 172, all of which relate to Clause 64. I refer again to the remarks made by all the noble Lords who spoke on these matters and thank them for their contributions to this debate. The Government are committed to ensuring that the victims of modern slavery eligible for a grant of leave to remain receive it. We have committed to this through Clause 64, which sets out, for the first time in primary legislation, the circumstances in which a confirmed victim of modern slavery must be granted modern slavery-specific temporary leave to remain. Clause 64 is in line with our international obligations as set out in Article 14 of ECAT and clarifies the policy currently set out in guidance. We have been clear from the start that this clause is designed deliberately to allow for leave to be provided for as long as it is needed, where appropriate, and the length of leave will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In answer to my noble friend Lord McColl, to specify the length of leave as Amendments 170B and 171A seek to do, either for 12 months or for the duration of the assistance and support that a victim is receiving, does not follow our overall approach of having a truly needs-based approach to the support of victims.

Clause 64 will clarify, in primary legislation, the obligations set out in Article 14 and Her Majesty’s Government’s discretionary leave policy, as currently set out in guidance. Confirmed victims of all ages, including children, who do not have immigration status, will be automatically considered for temporary leave. A grant of temporary leave to remain for victims of modern slavery does not prohibit them being granted another, more advantageous form of leave, should they qualify for that. It continues to be a core principle of our approach to modern slavery that support provided in the UK should be available only to victims who need it.

Adverse comparison was drawn between the situation in England and Wales and that in Northern Ireland and Scotland. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, alluded to, the matter of support is devolved to the devolved Administrations.

We agree that the primary aim here is to provide clarity and certainty about the circumstances in which they are eligible for a grant of temporary leave to remain. Amendment 171 would, by contrast, reduce clarity by providing that leave should be granted where necessary to assist the individual in their personal situation, within ECAT. Clause 64 addresses this critical issue by defining the scope of this entitlement. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, chided the Government for not getting on with it. The Minister in the other place, Rachel Maclean, has given the commitment and we are getting on with it. As my Zulu is on a merely conversational basis, I will not attempt in this place to answer the noble Lord in kind.

I turn to Amendments 171AA and 172. Clause 64 applies to victims of all ages, including children, who do not have immigration status. They will be considered automatically for temporary leave. Decision-makers are fully trained in making all leave to remain decisions, including considering all information to assess the best interests of the child, as well as to account for the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

In answer to a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, Clause 63 provides that the Secretary of State must secure support.

We will continue to comply with our duties under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and make it clear in the Immigration Rules that this is the primary consideration. We will also ensure that children continue to be supported and protected through existing mechanisms in local authorities.

Amendment 171 would remove the statutory clarification around when leave is deemed necessary, an important consideration provided for by Article 14 of ECAT. This would reduce clarity for victims and decision-makers. We must remember that an individual in receipt of a positive conclusive grounds decision has already had the benefit of the recovery and reflection period and any necessary support it provided. Leave under ECAT is not intended to be a path to settlement but a tool to aid recovery or to enable an individual to co-operate with the competent authorities in investigation or criminal proceedings, returning to my answer at the outset to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. ECAT provides that leave need only be granted where it is “necessary” and it is therefore right that we consider whether any further support required following the conclusive grounds decision can be met in a third country. This approach enables us to focus our support provision on those victims in the UK who are genuinely in need.

For the reasons I have outlined, I ask the noble Lord at this stage to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate. However, it is quite clear that we will have to have further lessons in Zulu to make sure that things are done. The Minister has raised lots of questions, which will be brought up on Report, where I am quite sure there will be a very lively discussion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 169A withdrawn.

Amendments 170 and 170A not moved.

Clause 63 agreed.

Clause 64: Leave to remain for victims of slavery or human trafficking

Amendments 170B to 172 not moved.

Clause 64 agreed.

Clause 65: Civil legal services under section 9 of LASPO: add-on services in relation to the national referral mechanism

Amendment 172A not moved.

Clause 65 agreed.

Clause 66 agreed.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 5 pm.

Integration White Paper

Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Wednesday 9 February.

“The Covid-19 pandemic has been a living example of the importance of working together as one. Whether it is the extraordinary success of the vaccination programme or the work to identify and protect the most vulnerable, we were at our best when we were working across traditional boundaries towards a common goal. We must learn the lessons of the pandemic and channel this spirit of collaboration.

Although huge progress has been made in bringing together our health and care services and local government, our system often remains fragmented and too often fails to deliver joined-up services that meet people’s needs. Thanks to incredible advances in health and care, people are enjoying longer life expectancies, but may be living with more complex needs for longer. Navigating a complex health and care system to meet those needs can be hard, especially when services are often funded, managed and delivered separately. People too often find that they are having to force services to work together, rather than experiencing a seamless, joined-up health and care journey.

If we are to succeed in our goals of levelling up our nation, we must keep working to make integrated health and care a reality across England. Today, we are publishing the integration White Paper, which shows how we will get there. It is the next step in our ambitious programme of reform, building on the Health and Care Bill and the social care reform White Paper, which this Government introduced to the House in December.

This White Paper has been shaped by the real-world experience of people, as well as by that of nurses, care workers and doctors on the front line, drawing on some of the great examples of collaborative working we have seen, particularly during the pandemic. It will make health and care systems fit for the future, boost the health of local communities and make it easier to access health and care services. It is a plan with people and outcomes at its heart—no more endless form filling, no impenetrable processes and no more bureaucracy that sees too many people getting lost in the system and not receiving the care they need.

First, we will ensure strong leadership and accountability, which is critical to delivering integration. Local leaders have a unique relationship with the people they serve. Our plans will bring together local leaders to deliver on shared outcomes, all in the best interests of their local communities, and encourage local arrangements that provide clarity over health and care services in each area, including aligning and pooling budgets. This arrangement has already been successfully adopted in several local areas. We have suggested a model that meets these criteria, and we expect areas to develop appropriate arrangements by spring of next year. Local NHS and local authority leaders will be empowered to deliver against these outcomes and will be accountable for delivery and performance against them. They will be supported by a new national leadership programme addressing the skills required to deliver effective system transformation and strong local collaboration.

Integration supports transparency, and joining up NHS and local authority data means that we can provide local people with better insights about how their area’s health and care services are performing. With access to more information, they will be more empowered to make decisions about where and how they access care. There will be a new single accountable person for delivery of a shared health and care plan at local level. In practice, that could mean an individual with a dual role across health and care or a single lead for a place-based arrangement.

Secondly, we will do more to join up care. At the moment, too many people are bounced around the system or have to tell their story multiple times to different professionals to get the care that they need, which is frustrating for people and front-line workers alike. There are so many opportunities here. Closer working between primary and secondary care can allow care that is closer to home, keeping people healthy and independent for longer, and closer working between mental health and social care services can reduce crisis admissions and improve the quality of life for those living with mental illness. The White Paper sets out how we will get there, using the power of data to give local leaders the information that they need to establish new, joined-up services to tackle the issues facing their communities.

Thirdly, we will make the best use of the huge advances in digital and data. We have seen throughout the pandemic how digital tools can empower people to look after their health and take greater control of their care—for instance, through the NHS app or remote monitoring technologies. Where several organisations are involved in one person’s care, there is a real opportunity to bring together data safely to create a seamless and joined-up experience. The White Paper reiterates our commitment to having shared records in place for all people by 2024, providing local people with a single, functional health and care record that everyone involved in care can access in a secure way. That will mean every professional having access to the key facts relating to a person’s condition, such as their diagnoses and medications. That will improve care, too, with professionals able to make care plans in full knowledge of the facts.

We have seen a rapid expansion of digital channels in primary and secondary care services in recent years, but there is plenty more that we can do. This year, 1 million people will be supported by digitally enabled care pathways in the comfort of their home. The White Paper sets out how we will open up even more ways for people to access health and adult social care services remotely. We will also support digital transformation by formally recognising the digital data and technology profession within the NHS Agenda for Change, and including basic digital, data and technology skills in the training of all health and care staff. Integrated care systems will be tasked with developing digital investment plans so that we can ensure that digital capability is strong right across the board. That means data flowing seamlessly across all care settings, with technology transforming care so that it is personalised to the patient.

Finally, the White Paper shows the part that the workforce can play. The health and care workforce is one of the biggest assets that we have, and we want to make it easier for people working in health and care to feel confident in how the system works together in the best interests of those they care for and to feel empowered to progress their careers across the health and care family. To drive that, integrated care systems will support joint health and care workforce planning. We will improve training and ongoing learning and development opportunities for staff. That means creating more opportunities for joint continuous development and joint roles across health and social care, increasing the number of clinical practice placements in adult social care for health undergraduates and exploring the introduction of an integrated skills passport to allow health and care staff to transfer their skills and knowledge between the NHS, public health and social care.

The White Paper represents a further step in our journey of reform, building on the foundation laid in the Health and Care Bill, looking ahead to a future of health and care in this country with people at its very heart. It paints a vivid picture of a health and care system with more personalised care and greater transparency and choice, where early intervention prevents the most serious diseases, using the power of integration to give people the right care, in the right place, at the right time.”

16:25

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, in the almost five years that I have been doing this job, we have been waiting for a social care White Paper. My noble friend Lady Wheeler, month after month, asked where it might be and was told that it would be in the summer, the spring or the following winter, and it did not arrive. Indeed, in desperation, the House’s Select Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, brought forward its own proposals for the future of social care, and extremely good they are, too. But here we are—the Government are now spoiling us with a third White Paper in a year. However, this one is a disappointment, I have to say, given the importance right now of the future for social care. Given the Government’s commitment to fixing social care, it is even more of a disappointment. We know that integration of health and social care, however it is defined, is extremely difficult, but I fear that its integration will not be delivered by this White Paper. It is long on description and has really great examples and aspirations, but it is very short on actual solutions and action.

Before I ask the Minister some questions that we need to address, I should also say that what is very disappointing in the White Paper is the lack of attention it gives to carers. They are not mentioned very often, even though the NHS and social care depend heavily on unpaid carers supporting people with long-term conditions and disabilities in the community. Some 1.4 million people in the UK provide more than 50 hours a week of unpaid care, and while unpaid carers provide the bulk of care, they are still not systematically identified, supported or included throughout the NHS. We have one system, social care, that recognises carers legally as an equal partner, while the other, the NHS, does not. That has been discussed in your Lordships’ House very recently, in the passage of the Bill before us, and is still not resolved. If there is going to be an integration of health and social care, one of the first things that needs to happen is the integration and legal recognition of the role of carers and our duty to support them and their well-being.

Moving on, it is not clear how this White Paper fits with the Bill before us. Even the experts involved repeatedly trip over the crucial issues, such as the relationship and responsibilities of integrated care boards, integrated care partnerships and integrated care systems, as well as the new joint committees and how they will work with the statutory health and well-being boards, which as we know have no commissioning powers, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has said on at least one occasion. What is the role of health and well-being boards? If they are necessary, why are they not integrated into the system being proposed in the Bill before us? Now that we have a new Joint Committee, my first major question is, how will it work with the health and well-being boards, and with the ICBs and ICPs? Where will the clinical leadership sit, and where is the accountability to local people?

It is not clear how this latest offer fits with the proposals before us today. I suggest to the Minister that this is not really a plan. It is a description, an aspiration, but it is not a plan. It does not tell us which bit is responsible for what. If the new individual proposed in this White Paper is to take responsibility for shared outcomes, who will appoint them? How will they get there? Will NHS England, which is appointing the ICB chair and chief executive, be accountable to this new super-leader? Will they be inspected by the CQC? What if a huge local foundation trust misbehaves? What powers will the new leader have to act? That is why it is not a plan.

The second reason this is not a plan is that it has no workforce component—an issue that we are very seriously concerned with in the Bill before the House now. There is no workforce strategy or a commitment to one. If we want integration, it has to be a workforce strategy that covers health and social care, and it has to be long term.

The aspirations and vision are fine, but we have signed up to strategies before—for example, the NHS plan in the noughties; we thought that would be good. I regret that it almost feels as if this document has been put together as part of finding lots of new things to say to detract from the issues facing the Prime Minister and No. 10, which is a huge missed opportunity.

So, the issues the Minister needs to address include the workforce and the question of how you integrate and pool two systems which operate in different ways. One is means tested, and the other is not. One has national criteria for entitlement, and the other does not. The ways they are governed and funded are totally different, and they are kept going by two separate workforces with no aligned terms and conditions.

The White Paper talks about local initiatives and building things locally, but unless the infrastructure is there to produce the alignment needed, those local initiatives—many of which are very successful—will not be the pattern for how this works. So, I leave the Minister with a series of questions I hope he might be able to address.

The White Paper also does not help children and young people. It does not address the challenge of how to care for and support working-age adults with a disability. As I have said, it does not value or assist the informal workforce or carers. For an NHS under enormous pressure after years of austerity funding and then the impact of Covid, this is a disappointment. I am afraid that I could not decide whether it should get a C or a D.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice president of the Local Government Association. Both the Statement and the White Paper set out a laudable ambition to integrate health and social care and communities, but I am afraid that we echo the disappointment of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, especially at the glaring omission of children, young people and disabled people who need care.

While reading the White Paper, I had a sense of déjà vu, and I dug out my copy of the White Paper Integration and Innovation: Working Together to Improve Health and Social Care for All, which was published on 11 February last year—almost exactly one year ago. The tone and the ambition were remarkably similar. All noble Lords know that the Health and Care Bill we are debating at the moment sets out in part how the Government believe that the White Paper from last year is going to be turned into legislation and changes in practice. The Minister knows the real concerns across the House about that practical implementation, and I do not believe that this new White Paper takes matters further forward.

From these Benches we also ask: where are carers? There is zero mention of carers in the Statement but 13 in the White Paper, two in the index and two as part of headings. The remaining nine in the text relate only to the people carers care for. There is no formal recognition of the role and no mention of support directly for them as carers. It says:

“People will move seamlessly between health and care settings because people and those supporting their health and care, including … unpaid carers, will be able to see and contribute to their care record and care plans.”


Is that the best on offer for carers—that they will actually be able to see the care plans? They can usually see them now, although most, I must confess, are still in paper format.

That was one example; I want to go on now to a couple of other issues. Much of the paper talks about how data will transform care in the future. On page 14 it says:

“A core level of digital capability everywhere will be critical to delivering integrated health and care and enabling transformed models of care.”


Can the Minister say—because the White Paper is absolutely silent on this—whether there will be funding for fast broadband across the country, especially in rural areas, to deliver that capacity to every single home? Without it, this entire system will fail before it even starts.

The White Paper also says that

“the data and information required to support them should be available in one place, enabling safe and proactive decision-making … We will aim to have shared care records for all citizens by 2024 that provide a single, functional health and care record which citizens, caregivers and care teams can all safely access.”

Can the Minister say how citizens’ data will be protected so that only those who need access to it will see it? As the Minister knows, this is another area where there is real concern over the Bill.

The paper talks extensively about leaders but in a generic way. There are muddles over NHS leaders, social care leaders and leaders of ICBs. Is it referring to council leaders or just leaders? I have to say that the organogram on page 37 makes the classic assumption of councils being single-tier metropolitan authorities, ignoring the plethora of two-tier council arrangements as well as other key stakeholders such as housing associations. It talks about

“3-5 local authorities within an Integrated Care System”.

Even at upper-tier authorities, that number is way too small with the shadow boards at the moment, and dwarfed when you add in district councils, which have key roles in delivering support for care. Unless this is hiding a proposal from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, this is another massive reorganisation for local government.

Housing is vital to the aims of the Bill. The paper says:

“People’s homes should allow effective care and support to be delivered regardless of their age, condition or health status.”


But housing is not mentioned in the “Next Steps” section. I ask the Minister whether there will be specific funding to ensure that housing can be improved at a local level for people who will need it for the next stages of their lives.

The Statement and White Paper recognise the importance of the workforce—in theory. The section in the White Paper talks about continuous development and joint roles, some of which is very laudable, but what is actually happening in the Health and Care Bill at the moment, where the Government will not commit to proper planning for the workforce, makes this unattainable too.

Above all, from our Benches, we want to know where the resources are that will enable this transformation to take place. Even before this week’s announcement about the patient backlog, the levy for health and social care was already prioritised for the NHS. Every time we have asked the Minister when the social care sector will get the resources it so desperately needs—and what they will be—we are told that it will happen at some point in the future.

We need to know when social care and councils will get the support they need, particularly councils with extra responsibilities in this White Paper and the Bill. The LGA has said, correctly:

“Adult social care is in a fragile position, with councils struggling to balance their budgets … A long-term funding solution is urgently needed.”


Can the Minister tell the House what, where and when resources from both departments will be announced and made available to at least give this White Paper half a chance to get going?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)]

I begin by thanking both noble Baronesses for their questions. I will try to answer them within the time and, if I do not, will write to the noble Baronesses or others. I will go through some of the issues, first on place-based models.

As we discussed on the Health and Care Bill, ICBs operate at a system level. They will be working with place-based organisations, including health and well-being boards. We expect several models of place-based alignment and governance to emerge and we are not going to be prescriptive about a single model. We are clear that, whatever model is adopted, in the coming years all places must be characterised by clarity of leadership and accountability; a strong shared mission across the sectors, informed by local citizens; a commitment to integration manifested in removing unnecessary boundaries between services and strengthening connections to agencies able to influence the wider determinants of health and well-being; a strong culture of improvement; and a linked sense of urgency about the need to deliver more integrated care to improve outcomes, particularly care quality.

By that we mean that we do not start thinking in siloed ways—of hospitals or primary care, with social care over there. All these White Papers are building-blocks to help explain some of the intentions behind the Health and Care Bill. The Bill itself creates a flexible framework based on the real experience of making effective change happen locally. This flexibility is designed for a purpose: the stronger integration of health and care services. The White Paper picks up that ambition by making clear the strong commitment of the Government to this agenda and our ambition to make progress. The White Paper will ensure that we go further and faster on health and care integration with local authorities and the NHS to make the most of the forthcoming legislation. It does not contradict the Health and Care Bill.

I will pick up on accountability. Three things are different. There is a wider recognition of the demographic challenges we now face, which will increase. We cannot manage it as just health any more or, even within health, primary, then secondary and care over there. The pandemic showed us that some of the cultural and governance barriers to change that seemed impossible to shift have moved. We have seen this work in lots of places up and down the country. There are some model ICSs, which many noble Lords have drawn my attention to, and case studies; we want to learn best practice without being overprescriptive. The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has talked effectively about place-based organisations many times and getting the right mix of skills and people for a particular place. What works in east London will not necessarily work in South Yorkshire. Some of it will, but some of it will not. We will learn from best practice.

We can be confident that the approach to accountability set out in the paper will work, because it draws on real examples that are already in place. If you ask local leaders what accountability means to them, they will be able to tell you who can ultimately hire and fire them. That is one version of accountability. They will also give you a list of the people and bodies to which they are accountable—partner organisations, local democratic institutions, staff, patients and service users, as well as regulators. We want to make sure that all that comes together to address accountability.

We hope to have shared care records for all citizens by 2024 but, as noble Lords will remember from the debate about data last night or early this morning, we have to get that balance right to make sure that people trust that data will not be shared unnecessarily or inappropriately. One of the key challenges for any integration is that it needs data across primary, secondary, social care and other agencies but, at the same time, we have to allow people to opt out. When people opt out, they might have to re-register a number of times. We want to avoid people, particularly vulnerable people, being asked the same question time and again. We hope that integration and people speaking to each other will help across the health and social care sector.

On carers, I was in fact having conversations yesterday on that subject, and I am going to be doing a round table with a number of noble Lords. One of the issues is making sure that we professionalise and give real respect to the caring workforce. One of the reasons why we set up the voluntary register was to understand the landscape of care, the different qualifications and levels, so that we can get a clearer understanding of what qualifications carers need and how we can make sure that works across both health and social care, so that staff can move between health and social care without feeling that one is better than the other.

We want to build on existing reforms. We want to talk to a number of partners—the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned housing, for example—and in the adult social care White Paper we looked at ideas about people being treated at home, some of the things that will have to be done at home, whether that is done at system level and how to make sure that partners are working together.

One thing I will say is that the vast majority of care workers are employed by the private sector. The increase the national living wage means that they will benefit from a pay rise, but we have also put in money. Some private providers feel that they are using private profits to subsidise others. We are making sure there is more money to make sure that we get a better quality of service right across. What we really want to do is say, “Tell us where it doesn’t work and where it breaks down” and to make sure that at the place-based level they are able to work together. We will speak to as many stakeholders as possible and we will continue to ask them to inform us.

I will try not to run over time, but I shall talk about the single accountable person. This will be agreed by the local authority and the integrated care board. An increase in long-term conditions and an increase in the number of people being treated for them means that, increasingly, the co-ordination between the range of services looking after them can fall apart; we know that too many people fall between the cracks. That is why we want to have the single accountable person—so that we can make sure that people are no longer falling through the cracks.

I know I have gone on a bit long, so I will allow other questions to come in, but I hope that addresses some of the concerns.

16:46

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, before I ask my question, perhaps I might formally apologise to the House for an error I made last night in Committee on the Health and Care Bill in responding to the debate on my Amendment 287 on dispute resolution and children’s palliative care. I had missed email correspondence from Together for Short Lives prior to the debate, in which the organisation had offered to discuss my amendment with me. I hope the House can accept my sincere apologies and regret at my inaccuracy. I have had helpful correspondence with the charity today.

I turn to today’s Statement. In my role as chair of the Mental Capacity Forum, I welcome the mention in item 5.14 of training in mental capacity, because there is a tremendous need for training at every level.

I also welcome the concept of personalised care, but I am concerned that the paper before us just does not go far enough. We need to document what matters to a person, and that needs to be an ongoing dialogue, not a tick-box exercise. If we know what matters to a person, that can inform best-interest decisions if the person loses capacity, and it is important for informal carers and family members to know that beforehand. Personalised care must include emotional care.

I am also concerned that there is nothing here about training the unpaid carers. They do not just need training in physical aspects of care; they need emotional training and training in how to de-escalate their own emotional stress, particularly when dealing with mental health issues in the person that they are caring for. There is nothing here about child carers and how information goes to a school that a child is a carer and may be under tremendous stress—or it may be that I have missed it in the documentation.

I hope the paper will stress the importance of people being listened to, which will inform decisions when deterioration happens. I would welcome the Government’s comment on how they are going to train enough people and instigate training across the board, both in sensitive listening skills and in achieving the high aspirations that I think the paper has attempted to set out.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her clarification and for notifying me earlier about the issue that she apologised for. One of the issues for us is that we want to make sure that if all the parts of the healthcare and social care systems are talking to each other, and there are accountable people, we hope that people will not fall through the cracks and that there is a multi-agency approach. It will be difficult to be overly prescriptive here, because what would work in one area might not work in another.

The point that the noble Baroness makes about training is critical. In many debates in this House, we have understood that we need to take the social care workforce seriously and give support to unpaid carers of whatever age, whether they are children or family members. Sometimes they are doing it because they do not want their loved ones to go into a home and sometimes they just need a bit of respite. We are looking at a number of issues around carers—first, unpaid carers but, secondly, making sure that being a carer is a rewarding career and is not seen as being at a lower level than, say, a nurse in the health service.

One reason for having a voluntary register, for example, is to understand the landscape and then put in place proper and different educational pathways, and other pathways, into care. Having national qualifications at levels 4, 5 and 6 and so on will show parity of esteem and that this is a worthwhile career. We have the Made with Care campaign to start to encourage more people back. We are looking at a number of different ways to make sure that carers are not just forgotten. If they work in care homes, that is fine, but we want to make sure that there is a real career structure for them, and also that they can move between health and social care, both ways. There may well be nurses or doctors who want to move across. We have to make sure that going from one place to another is not seen as disadvantageous in any way and that the system is truly joined up.

Of course, this is all top level and shows our ambition to integrate. We do not want to be overly prescriptive; decisions have to be made at place level.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and president of the Rural Coalition. I want to pick up very briefly on what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said about rural issues. It is disappointing that there are no explicit references to rural health. One of the concerns of the APPG on Rural Health and Social Care parliamentary inquiry was the way in which inappropriate data, metrics and funding formulas can disadvantage rural areas. National programmes are one thing, but when they are delegated to local areas how are we going to ensure that they are properly rural-proofed and will integrate both health and care?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

It is important to stress once again that the key to this is that we cannot overly prescribe from here in Westminster and Whitehall. We must make sure that at whatever place, whether it is rural or urban, the people and patients who are cared for in the system are being understood. One reason why we want one person to be accountable, whether in urban or rural areas, is the fact that they must take responsibility for ensuring that all these things are joined up—not only health and social care as we understand them but technology, housing and all those other issues. I know that the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lady McIntosh have often raised this issue. We think that the proposal is flexible enough, whether in an urban or a rural area, to make sure that one person really understands the local area of integration.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, paragraph 1.11 of the White Paper states:

“Our focus in this document is at place level.”


Paragraph 3.11 goes on to state:

“Success will depend on making rapid progress towards clarity of governance and clarity of scope in place-based arrangements.”


As far as I can see, the Government are proposing that by spring next year such place-based arrangements will be put in place across the country, with a single accountable person to whom my noble friend referred. There is no reference at all to place-based arrangements in the Health and Care Bill. For years, the NHS has been saying, “We are creating integrated care systems but they don’t have statutory cover, so we want legislation that reflects our way of working”. The Government are now proposing legislation that creates a way of working with no legislative cover. I am afraid that this will not work unless the Bill changes to reflect place-based arrangements and a single accountable person, and defines adequately who they are, what their powers are and how their accountability works.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that helpful intervention.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I respect my noble friend for his willingness to pass on the benefit of his many years of advice to me.

We do not want to get overly prescriptive. We have talked about health and well-being boards and I know that my noble friend has talked about their importance. In the papers I laid in the Library the other day, where we looked at integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships it was quite clear that, in some places where the health and well-being boards may well completely overlap with the ICPs in a smaller area, that will continue to be the place-based level. Where there is a larger system, we expect the integrated care board and integrated care partnership to work with the local place-based organisations underneath them at a more local level. That is what we have been saying all the way through. We want to make use of existing fora. In some places they will overlap and may well end up as the same thing. We will update the health and well-being board guidance in due course to reflect the implications of policies set out in the White Paper and what comes out of the Health and Care Bill when it passes.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, mine is a simple question. We have two separate pieces of legislation on the same area. How does the Minister guarantee that we will not end up with two contradictory systems?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The only legislation I am aware of is the Health and Care Bill; this White Paper complements that, just as the adult social White Paper does. This is not legislation.

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the White Paper and the direction of travel. I thank the Minister and his colleagues for being willing to listen to me and colleagues in the NHS who are involved in actual practical pieces of innovation in this space. It is good to see real examples of the implications for real people in this White Paper. There is also lots of focus on practical and detailed changes—for example, streamlining training and qualifications and shared outcomes. I wonder whether sufficient attention is paid to the social determinants of health and getting upstream with regard to prevention. Is there still too much assumption that the state is doing all the work? The private and voluntary sectors are the major delivers of care. Does the model of partnership proposed fully reflect this? The Minister might like to reflect on that.

Finally, as always, the devil is in the detail and will be all about implementation. One of the ways of achieving this focus is, as I have said before, through establishing innovation platforms that embody the ideas of not only the White Paper but the Health and Care Bill, levelling up and many other current initiatives. Innovation platforms can start to bring together some of these initiatives. It is our experience on the ground that a lot of the public sector systems and processes are not in place and are not fit for purpose. There needs to be innovation in this space. The problem could be an opportunity if we start to join some of this up. How do the Government intend to join up these various initiatives?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

In many ways, the answer is not what the Government intend to do but what happens at the place-based level. As the noble Lord has reminded me on a number of occasions, some of the projects that he has been involved in and other social enterprises have been really good at bringing people together. Sometimes it has been led by local councils; sometimes it has been led by social enterprises; sometimes it has been led by networks. I completely understand the premise of the question and agree that it has to be a partnership. It is not just a state, but social enterprises, co-operatives, local movements and local civil society all working together with common aims. Go to any part of this country and you will see a number of these people working together. We have to make sure that there is no overlapping or duplication. This is the real aim of what we are trying to get, making sure that people talk about health and social care but well-being as well.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, the one thing I admire about the document is the way in which the meaningless term “levelling up” has been shoehorned into the text. I want to raise the bundle of issues which have been grouped under the heading of parity of esteem between physical and mental health. It is not an issue we need just to have in the back of our minds; it needs always to be front and centre in the development of policy. More could be covered than is in the White Paper. One of the examples given in the White Paper is of Mandeep. It is well chosen. It is a case of someone with mental health problems and diabetes where there is a success to point to: where joined-up working has reduced the differential in suffering from diabetes experienced by people with and without mental health problems. That is a good example of what can be achieved. I hope that parity of esteem will be central in what the Minister is doing.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for raising the issue of mental health and parity of esteem, not only here but in our debates on the Health and Care Bill, and for our continuing conversations. We hope that we will be able to find a solution to make sure that mental health has parity of esteem. In previous Bills, health has meant physical and mental health, but I recognise the mood of the House when noble Lords ask for it to be stated explicitly somewhere, even in the triple aim. We are looking at solutions for that. He is absolutely right that it is not just about physical health; it is about mental health, about well-being, about tackling inequalities and about disparities. However, we cannot do that from here. We have to make sure that the place-based organisations, working in partnership with integrated care systems, really understand what is happening locally and are best placed to do that.

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the White Paper. How will adults with a learning disability and their carers see a difference in their care and support as a result of it?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

That is a really important issue. A single point of responsibility will make sure that these things do not fall between the cracks. It ensures that physical health, mental health and well-being all come together. A number of noble Lords have spoken about social prescribing, for example, and where that has been tried and where it might not work in other places. It is important that by talking about integration we get people thinking about integration at the place-based and the system level, but also that we can learn from good examples of what works elsewhere. That is what we hope to see. Sometimes, you just have to put in on the tin and say, “Think in an integrated way.”

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Committee (5th Day) (Continued)

17:03

Clause 67: Disapplication of retained EU law deriving from Trafficking Directive

Amendment 172B

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

172B: Clause 67, page 71, line 13, at end insert—
“(1A) This section may not come into force until the Secretary of State has conducted a review of the impact of subsection (1) and laid a copy of the review before Parliament.(1B) A review under subsection (1A) must include, but is not limited to—(a) identification of any parts of the Trafficking Directive which the Secretary of State considers to be incompatible with provisions made by or under this Act;(b) analysis of the costs and benefits of the disapplication of the Trafficking Directive;(c) the impact that the disapplication of the Trafficking Directive is likely to have on the identification, protection, support and access to wider remedies of victims of all forms of slavery in the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of disapplying the EU Trafficking Directive before this section can come into force.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendments 172B and Amendment 174A relate to Clause 67.

I say at the outset that I do not want to reopen a debate about Brexit, but I do want to reopen a debate about the practical implications of the UK being outside the EU and how it relates to the protection of children and those who are victims of slavery and trafficking.

The Government actively chose to opt into the trafficking directive in 2011, stating that it would send a powerful message to traffickers. The modern slavery strategy of 2014 stated that opting in showed

“our commitment to working with other countries in Europe to drive up standards across the continent in tackling trafficking.”

Can the Minister say what has happened to that and how the Government are demonstrating those continuing commitments? Why is Clause 67, on disapplying the directive, necessary? What the Committee would like from the Minister—which may be difficult to do now as he may need to refer to others before coming back to us—is to explain which specific provisions of the Bill the Government consider to be incompatible with the directive? The Government have not given any detail on this. Is it victims’ rights or children’s rights? In other words, what difference has it made, what was covered and what is not covered? These answers are necessary for us to make a comparison and see whether there are any gaps which we believe would be important to close.

In the Commons, the Minister said that

“the transition period for this measure finished in January, so in effect it has already been disapplied.”—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 2/11/21; col. 547.]

I hesitate to suggest this, but I certainly would not be able to tell noble Lords exactly which bits have been applied, which have been disapplied and whether it makes any difference. Can the Minister provide clarity on this? Are we disapplying it under this Act, or have the Government already decided that it does not apply? In other words, has it just been abandoned?

My amendment does not prevent the disapplication, but simply asks the Government to complete an impact assessment before this part comes into force—including identifying which parts of the Bill are incompatible and, crucially, what impact this would have on the identification and protection of victims of slavery. The Government may have already conducted an impact assessment but if so, I could not find one. If they have, it would be interesting for the Committee to note that. This is particularly important because a Google search finds all sorts of regulations and legislation which have been passed, presumably to protect victims of slavery and trafficking. So, my amendment is a simple probing amendment to ask the Minister what difference the disapplication has made. How do we know it has not made a difference if we have no information about the difference between what there was and what there is?

I do not intend to commence a huge new debate for this Committee, but I want to use this grouping as an opportunity to highlight the issue of internal trafficking and county lines. The Minister will know that large numbers of children are referred to the national referral mechanism. He will also know that 34% of referrals are British citizens. There is a real problem with slavery and trafficking within the UK. Euphemistically, this is called county lines, and we know what that means. This will be the tip of the iceberg. The Government have set up all sorts of initiatives to try to deal with this, but what I am seeking to do is simply to raise the issue of slavery and trafficking of children—British children—within the UK. How big is the problem, what is its extent and what are we doing to get on top of it? People of this country would be shocked at the numbers of British children being trafficked and enslaved. Often, including in the debate we have had on this Bill, much of the discussion has been about people coming into the country—rightly or wrongly—what the numbers are and what the impact of the new provisions will be.

Although this is a probing amendment, it is nevertheless really important. I am pleased to see that the Home Office Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is now in her place. Perhaps these are issues that should be debated elsewhere, but county lines and internal trafficking are important issues and the number of British children in slavery is increasing. It is a growing phenomenon that is a great shock to us all, and we need to do more to tackle it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to lend our support from these Benches to both the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. The subject of retained EU law is one on which it is easy to go down a rabbit hole. But at least this is being put in primary legislation instead of being done by the stroke of an executive pen, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Frost—who is, well, I had better not say—who used to be the Brexit Minister, appeared to suggest would happen. So, I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies.

The EU trafficking directive is, in a sense, a classic EU directive. It aims to get common standards as a measure of human rights protection, in order to establish robust provisions to prevent and prosecute the crime of trafficking and to protect, assist and support its victims. But also, the point of trying to get similar standards was to facilitate cross-border co-operation between member states’ law enforcement authorities through police co-operation, exchange of information and best practices, and dialogue between police, judicial and other authorities. Sometimes misunderstood, the whole point of EU harmonisation was to enable things to happen better, not least law enforcement.

I too do not want to rerun the issue of Brexit, but it is hard to see how pulling out of the EU trafficking directive is a Brexit opportunity. It is a lost opportunity to co-operate internationally across European borders with Europol on major crime. I am afraid that major criminals are one of the beneficiaries of Brexit.

It is a great pity that the part of the TCA on security is so thin. Things like the EU trafficking directive deserve a place in it. You can withdraw unilaterally, but that means you do not get the reciprocity of other police forces co-operating when you have criminal perpetrators who come from all over. Of course, we know this is an international crime. The EU directive also enables the pursuit of action in non-EU countries, such as raising awareness, reducing vulnerability, supporting and assisting victims, fighting the root causes of trafficking and supporting third countries in developing appropriate anti-trafficking legislation. That is an action that would rebound to the benefit of EU countries and the UK, if we were to stay plugged in to the EU’s directives. So, I do not see that pulling out is other than a lose-lose situation.

On the other amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, as has been mentioned—I believe this figure comes from Care UK—in 2020, 34% of all potential victims of modern slavery referred to the NRM were UK nationals. So, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is right to focus on that and on the many children involved in county lines drug dealing. We fully support the call for a report on these issues.

17:15

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 172B, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and concerning Clause 67, disapplies the EU trafficking directive so far as it is incompatible with provisions in the Bill. This means that any provisions in the directive that continue to have effect—I stress that we do not think that any do—and remain compatible with the Bill will be unaffected by this clause. Clause 67 provides an important point of legal clarity to ensure that victims can understand their entitlements, that we are clear on the rights that we are providing and that these are in line with our international obligations. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, but what it proposes is unnecessary. In future, should it be required and parliamentary time allows, we will consider whether further legislation is needed to clarify other elements of the EU trafficking directive. Here, we seek to provide clarity on the specific measures in the Bill.

In speaking from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, took the opportunity afforded by this short debate to land some side swipes at Brexit and its consequences, a topic I would be happy to debate with her all night. However, not to take up the Committee’s time, I simply stress that we are not removing any entitlements from victims. I can confirm that this will not have an impact on victim identification, protection or support.

Turning to Amendment 174A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I take the opportunity to reassure the Committee that there are already robust mechanisms in place across government, the police and the criminal justice system for gathering, recording and publishing victim data. There are measures in place for collecting and publishing data on the areas in which the noble Lord is interested and to which he referred in Committee. The Home Office publishes data on potential child victims of modern slavery referred through the national referral mechanism. Anticipating my answer in greater detail to the noble Lord’s point about the need to collate statistics on the incidence of trafficking of British children, the Home Office also publishes the nationality of recorded potential victims, based on information provided by the first responder on arrival. The noble Lord is shaking his head; I suspect he knows these things better than I do but, for the benefit of the Committee, that information may be updated by the competent authority staff as further information is gathered.

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister say what the contemporary definition of slavery is? We all know what slavery meant 400 years ago, but I find the word used in a way that makes it difficult to assess what it means.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Williams here: the short answer is to look at the Modern Slavery Act. It can involve coercion, which can be occasioned by way of threats to others or by threat to the individual. It can come in many different forms; it can be emotional or psychological as well as physical. It is a pernicious practice that exists among nationals of this country as much as it does overseas. Perhaps, therefore, it gives an insight into the universal failings of the human character. The short answer—I have detained the Committee for too long—is the advice that I gave, for which I was the conduit for my noble friend Lady Williams.

I was about to expand on the fact that data concerning criminal gangs is operational and held by each police force. Adding reporting requirements for this data would, we submit, require a significant change in the way the Home Office collates and publishes data on crime. Changing this reporting approach would be unnecessary since we already publish data on county lines NRM referrals through the NRM statistics publication.

I hope that goes some way to answering the noble Lord’s important concern over how we identify, go to the defence of and offer protection to children—nationals of this country who are the victims of these gangs. Modern slavery offences committed against children are, as I say, recorded and published by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Ministry of Justice. The Crown Prosecution Service maintains a central record of the number of offences in which a prosecution commenced, including offences charged by way of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. All modern slavery offences committed against children are identified through the child abuse monitoring flag. The Crown Prosecution Service definition of child abuse covers any case where the victim was under 18 years of age at the time of the offence.

I reassure the Committee and the noble Lord that a child’s welfare and best interests are the primary considerations in any decision-making—in this Bill and any other. Local authorities are responsible for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of all children in their area, including child victims of modern slavery. In addition to this statutory support, the Government have rolled out independent child trafficking guardians, who are an additional source of advice and support for potentially trafficked children. These have been rolled out in two-thirds of local authorities across England and Wales. The Government remain committed to rolling them out on a national basis.

Given all this, I respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment at this stage.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his answer. It was a short debate but an important one. There are couple of things that the noble Lord said in his answer about the EU directive that I think are helpful. It is something I might suggest with respect to the other amendment on county lines.

I think the people who read our debates will be pleased to hear the Minister say that no entitlement will be removed on victim support, protection or identification. I think I have that quote right. That will be helpful because, in the sector certainly, that is what a lot of people have been worried about: that the disapplication of the directive will impact on those aspects. The Minister’s reassurance will be welcome, although, as with everything, we will see how it works out in practice.

It was also interesting that the Minister said that other legislation may be needed to clarify the disapplication of the EU directive in due course—a fabulous phrase. As we move forward, we will see how it goes. Like Clause 67, this is very important. Sometimes, Governments fail to spell out how the disapplication works and what the practical consequences are. So, short debates like this are important.

On county lines and the report, I think that, despite the information being available, the British public have no idea that 34% of the referrals to the national referral mechanism—the body set up to deal specifically with this—are British children. I do not think that people have any idea that it is that high—that is an astonishing figure. Given that 47% of referrals to the NRM are children, this means that a very high proportion of all the people who are referred are British children. So that is the purpose of this.

It is not that the Government are not doing anything. If I had been the Minister, I would have mentioned the co-ordination centre that the Government set up in 2018, which is actually about all of the things that I am talking about: the need for more data, greater co-ordination, greater prioritisation of this work and greater identification of this as a new crime that people have not taken as seriously as they should; the fact that children are moving across county boundaries without being tracked or followed; the lack of statistical sharing between police forces, social services and children’s services; and children ending up on the south coast and coming back to London. All of those sorts of things are what the co-ordination centre was set up to deal with.

All I would say is that the Government, through the Home Office, need to keep their foot on the pedal on this because it is a growing problem. What is happening in our country is an absolute disgrace. Some of the children involved are not even teenagers; they are not even 17 and a half—I was admonished earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for mentioning 12 and 13 year-olds rather than 17 and a half year-olds, which is what he wanted me to say. Some of these children are seven, eight and nine years old. It is a disgrace, which is why I make no apology for bringing this forward in that context. British children are being enslaved and trafficked within our shores. I know that this is a priority for the Government and for all of us, and this has given me the opportunity to raise it, so that the people of this country can hear how bad the situation is and what we are seeking to do to try to address it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 172B withdrawn.

Clause 67 agreed.

Amendment 173 not moved.

Amendment 174

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

174: After Clause 67, insert the following new Clause—
“Migrant domestic workers
(1) The Secretary of State must amend the Immigration Rules to make provision for the matters the subject of subsection (2).(2) All holders of domestic worker or diplomatic domestic worker visas, including those working for staff of diplomatic missions, must be entitled—(a) to change their employer (but not work sector) without restriction, but must register such change with the Home Office;(b) to renew their domestic worker or diplomatic domestic worker visa for a period of not less than 12 months, provided they are in employment at the date of application and able to support themselves without recourse to public funds, and to make successive applications;(c) to apply for leave to enter and remain for their spouse or partner and any child under the age of 18 for a period equivalent to the unexpired period of their visa and of any subsequent visa;(d) to be granted indefinite leave to remain after five continuous years of residence in the United Kingdom if at the date of application their employer proposes to continue their employment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would serve to reinstate the rights and protections that domestic workers originally had under the terms of the original Overseas Domestic Worker visa, in place from 1998 to 2012.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 174, I will leave my noble friends Lord German and Lord Wallace to speak to their Amendments 181 and 183. I received a message asking me to pass on the apologies of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, who signed this amendment; she is in her place, but I suspect that she is going to make a hasty exit at some point fairly soon. She is of course the bishop with safeguarding responsibilities. I have her speech on my iPad; we are not allowed to read out other noble Lords’ speeches, which is a pity because it is much more neatly set out than the rather scrappy notes that I have.

The very unhappy position of some—too many—overseas domestic workers and the appalling situations that many of them are in were explained very powerfully to many of your Lordships during the passage of the Modern Slavery Act. One of the things that remains in my memory is the thanks that we received after the discussion on the Bill, even though we had not achieved the changes that we sought. A number of women who had been treated as slaves and prisoners but who had escaped and have connections with the charities working in the sector, particularly Kalayaan, were very keen to get us all together after those defeats to say thank you and of course to continue the campaign. They presented each of us with a single flower, which felt very significant.

It was a cross-party effort at that time. At the end of the day, we did not succeed in amending the Bill, but the Government commissioned an independent review into the terms of the overseas domestic worker visa to see whether it facilitated abuse and, as a result of that, made some changes to the visa regime in 2016. I am advised that these remain, in practice, ineffectual. The Government accepted in 2015-16 that workers need an escape route and should not be trapped working for abusive employers, so they reinstated the right of workers to change employers, but it is limited to the time remaining on the worker’s visa, which is kept at six months—so in practice a worker has weeks or, rarely, months, but very little time remaining to find new employment. Of course, most employers need the certainty of having someone working for a longer period. Many workers do not have their passports and they cannot demonstrate that they have valid leave, so automatically they fail work checks.

17:30

The Government also committed to the implementation of mandatory information sessions for workers newly arrived in the UK, in recognition that many—I suspect almost all—workers did not know what rights they had here. These information sessions were also intended to help them to know where to find help, if they found themselves in abusive employment. The right reverend Prelate tabled a Parliamentary Question last year, which confirmed that the commitment has now been abandoned.

Given the barriers that such workers still face in the UK, this amendment would simply serve to reinstate rights which holders of this visa originally had under the terms of the overseas domestic worker visa in place from 1998 to 2012. Concern has been expressed by United Nations experts, who say that they firmly believe that migrant workers should be granted the right to change their employer—and I have explained the problems here. It sent out a communication in July last year to which the Government have responded, confirming that they are looking to understand the nature of exploitation and are developing proposals to reform the route from next year—that is, this year.

There is a lot of evidence that demonstrates that reported abuse is lower when migrant domestic workers—this does not apply only to domestic workers—have rights that enable them to challenge abuse. These rights are not some sort of Trojan horse enabling people to come into the UK on an overseas domestic worker visa and then join the wider workforce. They could not, under this amendment, change work sector; they would have to register with the Home Office. They would have a right to renew but, provided that they were in employment and not dependent on benefits, a right to be joined by family and to be granted indefinite leave to remain after five years, provided that their employment at that time was secure.

Noble Lords will appreciate that this would provide stability and certainty, to which I have referred, to those who are forced to work in the teens of hours each day, every day, and to sleep in the corner of a kitchen, fed on nothing more than scraps from a family’s table. I am not suggesting, of course, that every overseas domestic worker is in this situation, but it seems that many are—and one in this situation would be too many.

The amendment also refers to the visas granted when a diplomatic family brings in a servant for the family. Again, this does not of course apply to all diplomats, but I remember that in 2015 we were told of examples of families from the Gulf with Filipino servants. It would make it practicable for them to find other employment.

As Callaghan put it, working conditions should not have to deteriorate to the point of slavery before workers can access redress and justice. I see that the right reverend Prelate has had to leave. She would have said that, by the standards of this Bill, this is a very modest amendment, merely restoring a model that worked well in the past. I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 181 seeks an exemption from the immigration health surcharge for international volunteers who come to the UK to work with vulnerable adults and children. International volunteers make a significant contribution to the work of UK charities across the whole of our country, particularly in the health, social care and education sectors.

The decision of international volunteers to travel hundreds and thousands of miles to help vulnerable people in the UK is a huge decision and commitment. Though they might get a subsistence allowance and board and lodge, they receive no salary. Additionally, the volunteers have to pay for their visa, insurance and flights. The additional impact of the immigration health surcharge simply adds to the financial burden on these volunteers and the charities they support, with the net result that the UK will probably attract fewer international volunteers.

Beyond the role they play in our domestic work, helping our society, these volunteers often become friends for life, not just to the individuals they have helped but as friends of the United Kingdom, in much the same way as international alumni of UK universities become friendship ambassadors of this country. They have formed bonds of friendship that can pay big dividends for us as time passes.

This amendment has the support of 55 charities and voluntary sector bodies across Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England. These organisations are feeling the impact of this surcharge and are seeking an exemption for their international volunteers. One of these organisations is Camphill Scotland, which supports more than 600 people with learning difficulties and other support needs. It works in the social care sector and has the support of more than 300 international volunteers. Without them, the charity would have to curtail its work. The Welsh Centre for International Affairs supports international volunteers, many of whom work with young people in disadvantaged areas in the south Wales valleys.

By way of comparison, if the work of international volunteers was undertaken by full-time paid staff, each post would cost the charities more than £17,000 per year. Volunteers cost charities about £600 plus subsistence, board and lodge. But the volunteers have to pay £625 for a visa, plus now another £230 for the immigration health surcharge, plus their air fares, plus their insurance. As an example, this is what international volunteer Constantin Jacobs says of the problem:

“There will be so many people that cannot afford to volunteer abroad any more, it might not sound like a huge difference for everyone but for young people who have just finished their school or their studies, and who do not have a lot of money, this difference can mean the decision to go or not to go to the UK to spend their voluntary year there. The UK would be much less attractive as a host country. I am sure that there would be many people who would actually love to go to the UK, deciding in the end to go to another country because of this change. This would be very bad for the volunteers and even worse for the organisations in health and social care systems that rely on volunteers from abroad!”


International volunteers are unpaid—not because they are worthless but because they are priceless. If they are priceless, I hope the Government will consider removing this charge from this one special group of people to allow us to continue the work being done and to create such good will around the world.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 183, which I hope the Government may be willing to accept before Report.

Investor visas were introduced in 1994. They became tier 1 investor visas in 2008. Conditions were tightened under the coalition Government in 2011 and further in 2014. Successive Governments, from different parties, have allowed them to continue. Theresa May announced a review of the scheme in 2018, after the Salisbury poisonings raised concerns about the numbers of wealthy Russians resident in the UK, but so far that review has not been published.

The majority of investor visas have been given to wealthy people from Russia, China and central Asia—all countries with high levels of corruption and extreme inequality. Given the FCDO’s recognition that the greatest state threats to the UK come from Russia and China, this does not fit easily with the Prime Minister’s aspirations for “global Britain”. It has been reported that more than 6,000 golden visas—half of those ever issued—are now being reviewed for possible national security risks. Many of those who received them will by now have acquired full UK citizenship.

Two Court of Appeal judgments in the past year have thrown up new questions about the regulation of this scheme and the sources of the finance pledged by applicants. Paragraphs 49 to 52 of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report, now published over three years ago and to which the Government have been extremely slow to respond, let alone to implement its recommendations, say that

“the UK has been viewed as a particularly favourable destination for Russian oligarchs and their money. It is widely recognised that the key to London’s appeal was the … UK’s investor visa scheme … The UK welcomed Russian money, and few questions—if any—were asked about the provenance of this considerable wealth … What is now clear is that it … offered ideal mechanisms by which illicit finance could be recycled through what has been referred to as the London ‘laundromat’. The money was also invested in extending patronage and building influence across a wide sphere of the British establishment … there are a lot of Russians with very close links to Putin who are well integrated into the UK business and social scene … This level of integration … means that any measures now being taken by the Government are not preventative but rather constitute damage limitation … It is not just the oligarchs either: the arrival of Russian money resulted in a growth industry of enablers—individuals and organisations who manage and lobby for the Russian elite in the UK. Lawyers, accountants, estate agents and PR professionals … To a certain extent, this cannot be untangled and the priority now must be to mitigate the risk”.

After warning about the extent of illicit Russian financial activity in the UK, including extensive donations to political parties, the report states in paragraph 56:

“One key measure would be an overhaul of the Tier 1 (Investor) visa programme—there needs to be a more robust approach to the approval process for these visas.”


So far, the Government’s published response to the ISC report makes no reference to this recommendation. If this has been true for Russians, it has also been true for Kazakhs, Azeris, Malaysians and Chinese. The Government recently made a great fuss about a British citizen with close links to the Chinese state and the funds she had donated to a Labour MP. It is surprising that they have so far made much less fuss about our resident Russian-linked community.

17:45

In a Bill that is largely designed to make access to UK residence and settlement more difficult, this singles out the very wealthy, who are often also politically exposed people, for easy entry. Home Office records show that, between 2008 and 2020, some 9% of golden visa applications were refused. In comparison, 42% of asylum applications were rejected. The UK has been one of the top 10 to 15 most popular golden visa regimes in the world.

It is also reputed to have one of the fastest application turnarounds globally, with the Government promising a decision within three weeks to applicants. In comparison, the turnaround time for a UK asylum application is six months. It is perhaps ironic that a recent report suggests that the UK has now lost ground in comparison with Cyprus and Malta, since UK citizenship no longer provides easy access to other EU states, including the Riviera and southern Spain—another unintended consequence of Brexit, of course.

Peers will recall May and Johnson’s rhetoric about patriotic “somewheres” and unpatriotic “anywheres”. But these new citizens are the ultimate cosmopolitans, using London as a safe haven while maintaining much of their wealth and business connections offshore. Those who provide for their needs in London serve the ultra-rich without considering the implications for Britain’s sovereignty and reputation. Oliver Bullough’s new book labels British enablers “butlers to the world”. One of them is co-chairman of the Conservative Party.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would believe that the reason the Government have not published the report of the review they promised in 2018, now four years ago, is all of a piece with their reluctance to act on the recommendations of the ISC’s Russia report: that they have something to hide; that Russian money flowed to the Conservative Party; and that the close links between property developers, other enablers and these wealthy people has become, as the ISC report put it, impossible to untangle. I hope that is not the case and that publication of the review will show that it is not so.

However, it is demeaning. A Government who claim to be proud to have restored British sovereignty are selling a fast track to citizenship to dodgy people from dodgy countries. It has distorted the London property market to an extraordinary degree. The Minister will remember Nigel Farage complaining that London commuters hear more Polish and Romanian on their trains home than English. He did not remark that there are parts of Belgravia and Hampstead where you now hear more Russian, Mandarin and Arabic than English. We have imported corruption and, with it, the danger that corrupt overseas wealth will in turn corrupt our own society and democracy.

My Amendment 183 asks the Government to publish this overdue review in full and, in the light of that report, to reconsider whether this scheme should be ended or restricted and policed more tightly.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very strong case, but I rise to strongly support Amendment 174, to which I have added my name. I am grateful to my friend Professor Fiona Williams, an important researcher on this issue, and Kalayaan, to whom I pay tribute for all their work on behalf of migrant domestic workers and for their briefings.

As we have already heard, it is clear that the 2016 reforms are not working. Rather than listening to overseas domestic workers and reinstating the original ODW visa, the 2016 changes ignore the need for workers to be able to exercise their rights before exploitation escalates. Support organisations such as Kalayaan and Voice of Domestic Workers report the bind in which the current situation leaves many such workers. Do they risk leaving before abuse escalates? If this abuse does not equate to trafficking, they could be left destitute, without a reasonable prospect of finding work and without access to public funds or legal aid to challenge mistreatment. The desperate need to remit money to one’s family and pay off debts means that workers may not feel able to risk leaving exploitative labour situations.

Professor Williams argues that key to understanding the problems faced has been the shift from placing ODW protection within an employment and immigration rights frame to a trafficking frame. The problem with the latter is that it puts the onus on the worker to prove that they have been trafficked when their exploitation may come from daily infringements of what should be their rights as workers. It leaves them more vulnerable to these infringements, not less.

Kalayaan has given me a recent case study that exemplifies the problem. I will go into some detail because it makes the case rather well. Jenny—not her real name—is from the Philippines. She comes from a poor family but, having won a scholarship to train as a teacher, she was unable to finish her training for various reasons. She later married and gave birth to a daughter who caught an aggressive form of pneumonia, which needed specialist costly private treatment. Jenny and her husband had to borrow money to pay for it. Their joint income could not cover the loan repayments, which prompted Jenny to look for work abroad.

Jenny moved to Lebanon to work as a cleaner. Her employer gave birth to a third child; Jenny was instructed to look after the baby as well as continue her cleaning duties, which was not in her contract. She worked longer hours than expected and was on the go and on call for much of the day. She had wanted to return home at the end of her first contract but was persuaded to stay when the family relocated to London. She was offered shorter working hours and pay at the national minimum wage.

Jenny arrived in the UK last year on a visa. In contravention of UK published policy, she was issued no information on her rights as a worker in the UK, either during the visa application process or on arrival. She worked the same long hours as before and, although she was paid a little more than in Lebanon, her hourly rate was less than half the national minimum wage. Her employer told her that she would be arrested if she left. Nevertheless, she did leave because she was exhausted from her long working hours for pay less than she had been promised.

Jenny approached Kalayaan when her visa had two weeks before it expired, having only just heard of the organisation. Kalayaan explained to her that her visa was non-renewable and that while she had permission to work in the UK, it would only be while her visa remained valid—for the next two weeks—after which she would be subject to the UK’s hostile/compliant environment for migrants. On the basis of Kalayaan’s assessment, it did not consider Jenny to be a victim of trafficking or slavery, so could not refer her to the NRM.

It is worth noting here that even cases that Kalayaan has judged appropriate for NRM referral are frequently turned down on the grounds that, while the working conditions may have breached employment terms, they do not constitute trafficking or slavery. Yet calls for the reinstatement of the original ODW visa are repeatedly met with the response that workers who have suffered abuse can avail themselves of the NRM.

Despite experiencing labour law violations, Jenny’s right to change employer was in practice of no use to her, given that she was not allowed to renew her visa. Had she entered the UK on the original kind of ODW visa, she would have remained visible to the authorities by renewing her visa annually, while contributing in taxes and visa renewal fees. Jenny’s case underlines how unhelpful it is to require maltreated migrant domestic workers to fit themselves into the slavery or trafficking frame, and how their rights would be better protected through the restoration of the original ODW visa.

Professor Williams also argues that the issue should be seen in an international context, where there have been very important advances in employment rights for domestic workers. In particular, ILO Convention 189 on domestic workers has been ratified by 35 countries—but not the UK. Ironically, when the convention was voted on, the UK Government abstained on the grounds that the UK already had a progressive policy—the OWD visa—which they then went on to withdraw. Will the Government therefore now rethink their position and restore the ODW visa without further delay?

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 183 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, which I am cosponsoring along with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I do not always agree with the Lib Dems, but I think the noble Lord’s arguments were very powerful and need to be listened to. The effect of this route is to sell permanent residence in the UK, and later even citizenship, to anyone who turns up with a couple of million to spare, with no questions asked about where that money came from. It is an extraordinary outcome. I can see why one might have thought this was a good idea initially, but it has turned into a nonsense.

As the Committee may know, this route is for individuals able to make an investment of £2 million. The applicant does not need a job offer or sponsor, and the visa includes all immediate family members. The tier 1 investor visa is initially granted for three years and four months and can then be extended for another two years by providing evidence of an investment of the required amount. The funds must be invested in UK gilts, bonds and equities only—of course, the money can be taken out of those afterwards, so it is a very convenient little entry for your money.

Currently, if you invest—so called—£2 million, you will get your permanent residence in five years; if you have £5 million to spare, it is three years; and if you have £10 million in your pockets, it is two years. The whole thing is just absolutely absurd, frankly. Indeed, between 2008 and 2020 it has led to a total of more than 12,000 such visas being issued. There is not even any economic benefit to the UK in this. According to Sir David Metcalf, a former chair of the Migration Advisory Committee, in 2014,

“the main beneficiaries are the migrants. Investors benefit from, for example, rule of law, property rights and access to efficient markets. Second, at present, the investment is a loan, not a gift.”

A MAC report from 2015 noted that the main proponents of this type of visas are—guess what—law firms, accountants and consultancies that help organise the affairs of such extraordinarily wealthy investors. There are also speculative concerns around whether this investor visa is being used by criminals. In an October 2015 report, Transparency International UK argued that it was highly likely that substantial amounts of corrupt wealth stolen in China and Russia had been laundered into the UK via this visa programme.

It is not clear what will happen to the tier 1 investor visa under the new points-based system—at least, it is not clear to me—but it seems that it will remain in place. I suggest that a thorough review is in order and, meanwhile, the route should be closed, as set out in this amendment.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am happy to join the noble Lords, Lord Green and Lord Wallace, and others who have brought this amendment. I may not agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, says, but I share with him a passion for the rule of law and a real concern for our reputation for protecting the rule of law. It is a real irony that our reputation for protecting the rule of law is one of the things that attracts people who have very little regard for the rule of law themselves and come from countries which ignore it almost altogether. I am afraid that this Government and their predecessor have a very inadequate record in responding to the threat of corruption of all sorts, and of course I support the proposals in this amendment.

In 2016, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron made a seminal speech about the importance of stamping out corruption. The Minister will remember the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and what a nuisance I was during its passage. I found it inadequate in a number of respects, including unexplained wealth orders, which I did not consider were nearly tough enough. I also put down amendments to try to persuade the Government to establish a register of overseas entities’ property, in order to try to reveal a great deal more about who actually owns vast parts of London. The noble Baroness was emollient and responded that as soon as parliamentary time allowed, there would be an appropriate response. I was slightly reassured by that. I continued to harry the Government. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Young, when he was a Minister, about the progress of matters. He was reassuring—none more reassuring than he—and said good progress was being made.

18:00

In 2018, when the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill came before your Lordships’ House, I put down a similar amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, on the register of beneficial owners of overseas entities. The matter progressed through Committee and was debated at some length. It then came to Report, when I was fully prepared to take it to a vote. I was in the Conservative Party then and it was not a popular decision. Quite frankly, I was leant on. I was leant on by No. 10 Downing Street and summoned to a meeting of officials from all sorts of different departments, who told me it was very unfortunate that I was going to do this because the matter was in hand.

I was then told, from the Dispatch Box, that the Bill was a priority for the second Session. It would be introduced by 2019 and the register itself would be operated by early 2021—sooner, if possible. I suppose I then received the prize for being a naughty boy; I was asked to chair the Joint Committee on the draft Bill. We looked at it in 2019. It was an excellent Bill that had been very well prepared by some skilful civil servants. We responded, stressing that time was of the essence. The Government appeared to accept our recommendations.

What has happened? Absolutely nothing. In the meantime, frankly, we look like a laughing stock. We are not responding to the threat of economic crime. We are giving away visas and the rest of the world must think we simply do not care. I thoroughly support this amendment.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure and privilege to make this trio of noble Lords—of naughty boys—into a quartet led by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, because I strongly support all the points that have been made. On this occasion, I am talking not about people with millions of pounds, but about domestic workers, mentioned in the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Here, there is another financial imperative for the Treasury, because I have long thought that we force people into the black economy because they simply cannot find a legal way to stay here.

I suggest to the Minister that this amendment would at least help a lot of people to come out into the open and pay taxes. If they could extend legal visas, those people would not go into the black economy and extend that uncontrolled area of work.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I support all three amendments in this group and particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for two reasons. First, it gives me a rare and particular pleasure to say that I strongly support an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, among others. His dedication has been remarkable throughout these debates, and this is the first time I have agreed with what he has said.

Secondly, there is just one element missing from the powerful case for this amendment made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. It is partly filled by the remarkable speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and it is about reputation. The noble Lord said that we have become a laughing stock worldwide but, in America and large parts of continental Europe, it is worse than that. People are not laughing; they think it is beyond a joke. I strongly recommend this amendment to the Minister.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lord, I strongly support the basic thrust of Amendment 183 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I do so having regard to the negative effects of the system of tier 1 visas, both in our own country and overseas. The first undesirable effect of this dirty money is on the economy of London; in particular, the cost of housing being pushed up to unaffordable levels by foreign so-called businessmen seeking secure investments, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. My noble friend Lord Faulks identified a lack of progress by the Government in this area.

I accept that there may be some business opportunities in meeting the demand and providing both professional and artisan services to tier 1 investors. Personally, I would not want to earn my living from dirty money, in effect stolen from people of overseas countries. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, explained this with his usual skill. Not only do some of these tier 1 investors illegally suck money and assets out of their own country to enjoy in ours but they take full advantage of our well-developed system of justice and the rule of law—JROL. This means that they can keep their assets secure and also enjoy a reliable means of passing them on to their offspring. Of course, they have no incentive to seek to implement any decent form of JROL in their own country because it is not in their interests to do so. The lack of JROL and the negative effects of corruption mean that countries such as Russia, and many developing countries, will never be able to achieve their full economic potential.

For instance, defence equipment apart, I cannot think of any manufactured product that comes from Russia. No wonder it has an economy the size of Italy’s, despite its natural wealth, larger, if declining, population, and vast space. It is not for us to interfere with the internal arrangements of other sovereign states, but if we denied oligarchs, the super-rich and despots of countries without JROL the safety and advantages of a safe landing and base in UK and other similar countries, they might be more inclined to seek to put their own countries in order. This would have enormous economic benefits and other benefits for the people of those countries.

I turn to the problem of Ukraine. It is clear that any invasion by Russia will result in severe sanctions against Putin’s regime, including Russian tier 1 investors in the UK who are judged to be close to Putin. I am confident that the Government are planning such potential sanctions as we speak, although the likely targets will already have taken precautionary action. However, if our worst fears are realised, we should go much further and hit all Russian tier 1 investors, whether they are President Putin’s friend or foe. That way, they might be more inclined to get off their posteriors and put pressure on Putin and maybe even think about improving JROL and press freedom in Russia. Furthermore, this course of action would not adversely affect the inhabitants of Russia.

We cannot continue to allow filthy, dirty money to come into the UK via the tier 1 investor visa route, because it pollutes our economy, damages the economies of other countries, and seriously erodes our soft power position.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Amendment 174 would return rights to people in the UK who are on the overseas domestic workers visa—primarily, the right to change their employer and renew their visa for a period of not less than 12 months. The then coalition Government changed the visa regime in April 2012, so that workers and their immigration status are tied to their original employer, and their visa cannot be renewed past six months. That has caused real concern that the working people involved are tied into situations of abuse and slavery. The cross-party Joint Committee on the Draft Modern Slavery Bill, as it then was, said that the changes to the regime had

“unintentionally strengthened the hand of the slave master against the victim of slavery.”

It concluded:

“Tying migrant domestic workers to their employer institutionalises their abuse; it is slavery, and is therefore incongruous with our aim to act decisively to protect the victims of modern slavery.”


In 2015, the independent Ewins review called for all overseas domestic workers to be given the right to change employer and apply for further leave to remain in the UK for up to 30 months. It found that the terms of the domestic worker visa were

“incompatible with the … protection of overseas domestic workers’ fundamental rights while in the UK”.

Unfortunately, the Government disagreed with the recommendation; instead, they made more limited changes to the Immigration Rules, with the effect that all domestic workers can change employer during their six-month visa, but only those who are found to be victims of trafficking or modern slavery can change employer and apply to stay for longer in the UK. The problems with this limited approach were set out in the Ewins report: they failed to provide an immediate escape route out of abuse; the six-month limit makes it difficult for people to find other employment; and the national referral mechanism requirement means that a person must have taken the step to report, and met an evidential burden to prove, that they are victim of slavery, which, frankly, many are too frightened to do. We certainly support the thrust of Amendment 174.

Amendment 181 would exempt international volunteers from paying the immigration health surcharge, and I await the Government’s response with interest. I would like to know what consideration the Government have given to extending the exemption, and have the Government met charities which have raised concerns about its effect on volunteering in particular sectors, especially social care?

Amendment 183, about which most has been said—with some feeling and fervour—would require the Government to suspend the tier 1 investor visa route, known as “golden visas”, until the review into those visas has been made public. In its 2020 Russia report, the Intelligence and Security Committee recommended that a key measure for

“disrupting the threat posed by illicit Russian financial activity”

is an

“overhaul of the Tier 1 (Investor) visa programme—there needs to be a more robust approach”.

In March 2018, the Government announced a review of golden visas issued between 2008 and 2015. This followed revelations that the Home Office and banks had made next to no diligence checks in that period. According to a freedom of information request in June 2021, the Home Office is reviewing 6,312 golden visas, half of all such visas ever issued, for a range of possible national security threats. Almost four years since the Government announced the review, and as has been said more than once this evening, the findings have not yet been reported.

Many of those who received visas during this period will have been eligible to apply for British citizenship over the past seven years, and it is surely essential that there is full transparency about the findings of the review, including: a detailed breakdown of how many visas have been revoked; how many cases have been referred to law enforcement; and how many applications for renewal or citizenship have been denied.

In the Commons last month, Stephen Kinnock MP asked the following question:

“Six months ago, the Government said that they were finalising their report into how more than 700 Russian millionaires were fast-tracked for British residency via their so-called golden visa scheme. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House when that long-overdue report will be published?”


The Foreign Secretary’s reply was:

“We are reviewing the tier 1 visas that were granted before 5 April. I am sure the Home Secretary will have more to say about that in due course.”—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/22; col. 60.]


Therefore, I ask the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government: does the Home Secretary have “more to say” about this tonight? We are all waiting to hear why it has taken so long to produce this report. In the absence of a credible explanation, one can conclude only that there are some embarrassing reasons that have led the Government to delay producing this report.

18:15

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thought it might be helpful to slightly unpick the two types of workers—the difference between domestic workers in households and those who work for UK-based diplomats. Obviously they are different groups with different needs, the latter being served by the temporary worker international agreement route, which permits dependants. This is not the only aspect of our domestic immigration system that already provides what the amendment proposes. Both groups of workers are free to change employers; in fact, our existing arrangements already go further than the amendment proposes, and I will outline why.

We do not expect domestic workers to register with the Home Office because we want a worker to be able to leave as soon as their mind is made up to do so, so we must avoid anything that may act as a barrier to exercising that right. Imposing an extra condition now risks undermining changes that have been made for the better. We have already made provisions under which both groups of domestic worker can obtain a two-year extension of stay if they are found to be a victim of modern slavery. I think these arrangements strike the right balance, ensuring that those who find themselves in an abusive employment situation are able to escape it by, first, finding alternative employment and, secondly, encouraging them to report that abuse through the appropriate mechanism.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on overseas domestic workers who are not slavery victims, very similar to the case that she has pointed out, but are actually exploited, the Immigration Rules are deliberately designed to prevent the importation of exploitive practices—for example, they set out that they should be paid the national minimum wage. I hope that helps on her point. I appreciate that the case she outlined seemingly falls between the cracks, but the Immigration Rules are very clear on that.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

The fact is that I do not think it is an unusual case; I asked Kalayaan for a recent case study and that is what it came up with. The Immigration Rules are not working in that respect. We have overseas domestic workers who are being exploited but, even when they are referred to the NRM, are told that it is not slavery or trafficking. Would the Minister be willing to look at that again? There is a problem, as she put it, of some people falling through the cracks.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I am not going to look at it again but I will perhaps explore it further and see why what is happening is happening. That is probably fair enough.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

Is the Minister aware that, in some countries, applicants choose those families that come to London regularly in the summer, with a view to leaving them after a month or two and settling, legally or otherwise, in the UK? The system needs to be fairly tight to avoid trouble on that front.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Between what the noble Lord has just outlined and what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has just said, that probably explains both ends of the system in different ways.

On visa extensions, although I fully support the noble Baroness’s determination to improve protections for migrant domestic workers, rewinding the clock and reinstating the features of a route that were deliberately removed almost a decade ago is not the answer—probably, in part, for some of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, outlines.

The overseas domestic worker visa caters specifically for groups of visitors who by definition stay for short periods. That visa allows private domestic staff to accompany their employer where that employer enters the UK as a visitor and where they intend to leave together. Approximately 20,000 visas are issued every year on that basis, and the vast majority leave well within the validity of their visa.

The amendment seeks to reintroduce features of the route which were removed for good reason. We must not forget that abuse existed before 2012 and be mindful that allowing overseas domestic workers to stay could inadvertently create a fresh cohort of recruits for traffickers. We must avoid a route that could be used by criminals to entice victims to come to the UK.

Noble Lords have referred to the report, commissioned by the Government, by James Ewins QC, which, crucially, did not establish a direct link between the length of stay and the likelihood of exploitation. Years later, this picture remains. There is no greater risk if a domestic worker is here for two weeks or 12 months, so increasing the length of time that they can stay will not afford them greater protection from being exploited.

I think that the noble Baroness and I share the same objective of the delivery of a safe and appropriate system for a very vulnerable category of workers. However, for all the reasons that I have given, we do not agree on the means of achieving it.

I am aware of comparisons that have been made between those employed in the healthcare sector who are exempt from the health charge and those who come to the UK as volunteers. However, there are very clear and important distinctions between workers and volunteers on the charity worker visa. The route should not be used to fill gaps in the labour market, even on a temporary basis. To answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, yes, we have been engaging with charities. The Government think that appropriate immigration concessions are already in place, which support volunteers on this route. The charity worker visa offers a low fee, compared to other work routes, and sponsors pay a lower licence fee, in recognition of their charitable status. While the charity worker route is the main route for volunteers, it is not the only way in which volunteers can be recruited to support the work of charities.

I note the concern of the noble Lord, Lord German, that the immigration health charge might deter volunteers from coming to the UK. Published figures indicate that, for the years immediately preceding the pandemic—clearly the years after that are very unusual—the number of charity visas granted remained broadly consistent. This indicates that volunteers are not being deterred by having to pay the health charge.

The NHS must continue to be properly funded and the immigration health charge plays an important role in that. It has generated almost £2 billion for the NHS since its inception, and it ensures that temporary migrants who come to the UK for more than six months make a direct contribution to the comprehensive range of NHS services available to them during their stay. Those who pay the charge can, from their point of arrival in the UK, use the NHS in broadly the same way as a permanent resident, without having to make any prior tax or national insurance contributions. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord German, will not press his amendment.

On Amendment 183, I hear noble Lords loud and clear. I recall the debate that my noble friend Lord Faulks and I had during the Criminal Finances Bill. I also completely acknowledge the point about those relying on funds that have been illegitimately acquired. It is because of those concerns that we have committed to a review of visas issued under the route between 2008 and 2015. We are finalising the review, if noble Lords can be patient, and we will publish it in due course—I knew there would be a sigh from behind me and in front of me when I said that.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Four years is quite a long time to produce a report. Why has it taken four years to date and why are the Government still in a position where they cannot really give any proper indication of when it will be produced? “In due course” is the cop-out expression for a Government who do not really know.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I will have to think of a new phrase: perhaps “shortly”.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Is it this year?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Yes, I hope that it will be this year.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I say to noble Lords that I share their concerns. I will also be writing to the Committee before Report on this very matter. Since 2015, we have excluded investment in government bonds and strengthened the rules to ensure that investments are made in active and trading UK companies. Applicants must also demonstrate that they have a wealth of at least £2 million for at least two years, up from 90 days, or provide evidence of the source of those funds. We require banks to explicitly state in a letter to the Home Office that they have completed all requisite customer due diligence and know your customer checks prior to opening the applicant’s account, and we have increasing evidential requirements where migrants have invested their qualifying funds through a chain of intermediary companies so that the Home Office can better assess the ultimate destination of qualifying investment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I hope the Home Office has consulted the FCDO on this issue. The Minister will be aware of the report from the Center for American Progress in Washington which argues—and this is the conventional wisdom in Washington as far as I can see—that we are the weak link in the West’s relations with Russia, and the reason why we are the weak link is because of this large colony in London with such close links to Putin.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I acknowledge all the points that the noble Lord has made and agree that there is more to be done here. I do not think anyone could deny that. The Criminal Finances Act was a start and there is more to be done in this space, most definitely, but I think I will leave it there. I hope, with what I have said, that the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friends both made very powerful cases. I hope that my noble friend Lord Wallace will forgive me if I make only one comment on his amendment, in fact in response to what the Minister said about banks checking up: I wonder whether the banks check up on the holders of golden visas as often as they check up on noble Lords who are PEPs.

With regard to my amendment, like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I ask why we would have been asked to propose this amendment if there were no problem. I regarded the registration with the Home Office as a sort of olive branch, something that might make the Government feel a little more comfortable. The Immigration Rules are not working because there is not the distinction to which she and I have referred.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton—how is “Berkeley” pronounced? I should know from hearing him on the radio—referred to the financial aspect of this and forcing people into the black economy. It is wider in respect of people who are here irregularly, of course, because it is hugely important. But it is exactly the same as the point made by the Minister that if the situation were changed it would provide a group of people who would be—I wrote it down—a cohort for traffickers, but that is exactly what the danger is now. I am puzzled and disappointed but clearly we are not going to make progress today, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 174 withdrawn.

Amendment 174A not moved.

Clause 68 agreed.

Clauses 69 and 70 agreed.

18:30

Clause 71: Electronic travel authorisations

Amendment 175

Moved by

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

175: Clause 71, page 74, line 16, at end insert—
“(c) the individual is travelling to Northern Ireland on a local journey from the Republic of Ireland.” Member’s explanatory statement
Under this amendment, persons who are neither British nor Irish would nevertheless be able to make local journeys from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland without the need for an Electronic Travel Authorisation.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment is in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and my noble friend Lord Coaker. Its purpose is to ensure that persons who are neither Irish nor British would nevertheless be able to make local journeys from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland without the need for an electronic travel authorisation. Clause 71 amends the Immigration Act 1971 to introduce electronic travel authorisations. It provides for a pre-entry clearance system which requires anyone who does not need a visa, entry clearance or other specified immigration status to obtain authorisation before travelling to the UK. This includes journeys within the common travel area; indeed, the clause has been expressly formulated to ensure that CTA journeys are captured.

This system does not apply to British or Irish citizens or those who have already been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK. The system will impact mainly non-visa nationals, including EU nationals, who can presently enter the UK visa-free for set periods. Almost all such persons are presently automatically considered to have deemed leave to enter the UK when crossing into Northern Ireland on the land border. It is believed that new subsection (4) in Clause 71 has been drafted intentionally to ensure that persons who are travelling within the CTA and consequently would not need leave to enter the UK will still require an ETA.

In preparing for this amendment today, I spoke to both the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission based in Belfast, which have commitments under Article 2 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol in all these matters. I spoke also to the Committee on the Administration of Justice, and my noble friend Lord Coaker and I spoke to representatives of the Irish Government based in the Irish embassy, who are deeply concerned about the impact of Clause 71 on tourism, not only in the Republic of Ireland but in Northern Ireland —for those people who come in to have a holiday via Shannon and Dublin airports and then move northwards.

It appears that the UK Government intend the scheme to apply on the land border and, so far, are dismissive of concerns raised. This looks very much like it is in breach of Article 2 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, which deals with specific rights of individuals. The clause shows a total lack of understanding of the border, which has many crossings. The noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, who served in Northern Ireland as a former Minister and was chair of the Patten commission on policing, will be well aware of the geography not only of Northern Ireland but of the border area. I am sure that he would very clearly see the issues involved.

The situation for some time has been that almost all EU, EEA and non-EEA citizens who are non-visa nationals present in the Republic of Ireland can cross the land border freely on local journeys into Northern Ireland without any requirement for prior immigration permission. In some ways, the Bill conflates modern slavery issues with immigration, as well as with the necessities of an economy and tourism.

It has been the case for some time that citizens who are non-visa nationals present in the Republic of Ireland can cross the land border freely on local journeys into Northern Ireland, without any requirement for prior immigration permission. For EU-EEA citizens since Brexit, as was already the case with other non-visa nationals, permission in such circumstances is restricted to entry as a visitor and certain activities, such as work, are restricted when entering the UK this way. However, this system has allowed non-visa nationals resident in border areas in the Republic of Ireland to enter Northern Ireland freely for a range of activities, even visiting family members or for work purposes. I am aware of people who do that; they contribute to the economy in the Republic but have family in the north, and vice versa.

Under this new proposal, non-visa nationals resident in the Republic of Ireland will be required to apply in advance and pay for an ETA before crossing the border into Northern Ireland. It is clear that this will have a detrimental impact on non-visa nationals who need to enter Northern Ireland for activities such as visiting family, accessing childcare, carrying out permitted work engagements and accessing services and goods. This system will also impact the ability of members of the migrant community to take part freely in cross-border projects and programmes. I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, living in County Fermanagh, will be well aware of these issues for people who are resident or working in Counties Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal.

Concerns have also been raised about the impact of the ETA system on business, health and tourism, plus recreational issues, as it would require non-visa nationals in the Republic of Ireland to obtain an ETA before a visit to Northern Ireland, a fact that has been recognised and raised directly with the Home Office by the Irish Government. This would have an impact on tourism in Northern Ireland, as many people travel via Dublin and Shannon airports and head northwards. Therefore, the Government’s ETA proposal will impact detrimentally on tourism and economic opportunities in Northern Ireland. It will act as a disincentive to people from North America coming northwards to visit the Mourne Mountains in my own area and the Giant’s Causeway in north Antrim, which are both geographical icons. My noble friend Lord Coaker will be aware of this from his time as shadow Secretary of State, when I travelled with him round the constituency of South Down.

In the context of an invisible land border that British and Irish citizens can freely cross, it is eminently foreseeable that many other persons who have hitherto been able similarly to cross the border without any prior permission will be largely unaware of the ETA requirement. There are legal impacts to this. I am a member of the protocol sub-committee in your Lordships’ House. We wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, with a series of questions on 14 January. To my knowledge, we have not yet received an answer. We asked whether she would specify

“who will be required to have a valid ETA, and any exceptions to this; the form or manner in which an application for an ETA may be made, granted or refused; any conditions that must be met before an ETA application can be granted; the grounds on which an ETA application must or may be refused; the validity of an ETA (length of time and/or number of journeys); and the form, manner, or grounds for varying or cancelling an ETA”.

I hope the Minister answering this debate will be able to provide the Committee with some answers this evening and will exhort his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, to reply to the chair of the protocol sub-committee. I ask again: can the Minister confirm whether holders of a frontier worker permit will be exempt from the requirement for a valid ETA? Will there be any other exemptions or special arrangements for people crossing the land border frequently from the Republic of Ireland?

It would be preferable if ETA requirements did not exist or were not applied when travelling from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland. I understand that much discussion has taken place. I exhort the Minister to give such commitments here this evening. If he cannot, can he give a commitment that the Government are prepared to come back with an amendment on Report to deal with this matter and cancel ETA in such circumstances, because it is utterly crazy? Can the Minister specify what the results of those discussions have been? If the Government do not wish to adopt my amendment, will they bring forward an amendment on Report to deal with these issues?

I also agree with Amendment 175ZA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Although it is very much an exploratory amendment, it is a very important one that is allied to mine. I agree too with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, which I have also signed. It deals with the birthright commitment under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the onus on the Government to report on progress in giving effect to the nationality provisions of that agreement. We should always remember that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement states that people can identify themselves as

“and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose.”

For my part, I hold an Irish passport. I am Irish and I declare myself to be Irish, although I live in the UK—which I freely recognise.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. I thank noble Lords who will speak in support of these amendments, and I hope that the Minister brings us some positive news tonight, or that he indicates what the Government might do on Report.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 175 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, to which I have added my name. I also support Amendment 175ZA, in the names of my noble friends Lord Paddick and Lady Hamwee, and Amendment 186, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.

I will be brief because I fully support and agree with the very powerful points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. As it stands, the Bill does not give proper consideration to the economic and legal implications for the island of Ireland. Amendment 175 would amend the Bill so that all local journeys from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland, including for people who are neither British nor Irish, could continue to be made without the need for electronic travel authorisation.

I will highlight three areas of concern about the proposals as they stand and would very much appreciate a response from the Minister. The first is the question of legal uncertainty. If the Home Office remains committed, as I sincerely hope it is, to no checks on the land border on the island of Ireland, how will it enforce this new measure in practice? As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has said, thousands of crossings are carried out each day by non-British and non-Irish residents in the Republic of Ireland who need to cross the border for work, leisure, family or educational purposes. There is currently no requirement or expectation that people carry passports if they live or work in the border areas. Given the very particular circumstances of the border areas in Ireland, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how these measures will be enforced in practice.

The second area of concern is how these measures will sit with the existing commitments on the common travel area, as set out in the Northern Ireland protocol. The protocol sets out quite clearly that, irrespective of nationality, the rights and privileges contained within the common travel area will continue

“with respect to free movement to, from and within Ireland for Union citizens and their family members”.

Can the Minister confirm that this will continue to be the case?

18:45

My third and final point is the issue, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, of the potential economic impact of these measures on the Northern Ireland economy, most particularly the potentially very detrimental impact on tourism. Tourism is a major part of the economy in Ireland. Previously, American tourists, for example, arriving on the island of Ireland would have the expectation of free travel across the island for the duration of their visit. They would expect to be able to travel completely freely between Dublin, Belfast and Donegal during their stay. Has an economic assessment been undertaken on the impact of these measures? In particular can the Minister say whether any studies have been undertaken on whether the requirement for an ETA might discourage tourists from travelling to Northern Ireland from the south during their visit—and the consequent impact on the Northern Ireland economy?

In summary, I believe that these measures have not been properly thought through, and I urge the Government to think again and accept these amendments.

[Viscount Brookeborough (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. I had not necessarily thought about saying anything, but she mentioned me in her speech. First, I declare an interest in that we are involved in tourism at home. Secondly, my brother is chairman of Tourism Ireland, a cross-border body that survives on funds from both the United Kingdom and Ireland to market the island of Ireland. Therefore, this particular regulation would make a complete fool of the whole practical implementation of it.

People ought to understand what the border really is—or, in fact, what it is not. We have come through all the Troubles. Before them, we had a border and we had to have certain papers to cross it. Then we all joined the European Union and that side was taken out of it. But then we had the Troubles so, in effect, the border was reinstated, albeit for a different reason. We do not have those border checks now; there is no border under the Good Friday agreement and everything since, including the protocol. That is the way it should be. Whether the noble Baroness and I are supporters of the protocol is neither here nor there; it is about the practical problems raised by this.

Whether tourists from another country cross the border, and who polices this, is of course an issue. In fact, they will not know whether they are crossing it, so it becomes rather ridiculous—on the whole, they do not have a clue. During the Troubles, there was a time when even our own British people—soldiers and police—did not know whether they were crossing it, so they used to draw yellow lines on it so that they knew when they were. A certain part of the population moved the yellow lines, so they still did not know where they were and then there were diplomatic incidents.

I live in County Fermanagh, which is one-third of the border in Northern Ireland. The border does not just affect it in terms of regulations—people cross it not just from day to day but time and time again in one direction or another to do very simple things. I know that you can use euros here if you are pushed, but every shop and business there uses euros and pounds. Therefore, half the time, no one has a clue whether they are in the north or the south, even when they walk into a shop. All the people working there, and of course the ones who are straightforward British or Irish, are not covered by this.

However, a wealth of people who are not British or Irish live and work within a few miles of the border and they do not think twice about it. If you cannot get a plumber very locally—we might get one from further afield anyway—you just ring up the nearest person. We are five miles from the border and he could well be from either side of it, and he might not be an Irish or British citizen.

I entirely support this amendment. I know that what I have said is not technical and I can only be very grateful to the noble Baroness, as we all can, for going into it in such detail because there is very little for us to say, except for the Government to sort it out.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and spoken to by other noble Lords. I was grateful, too, to have been briefed by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. I did not need to be convinced of the importance of local journeys for work, education, health services, shopping, frontier workers and so on. I was lucky enough to be a member of the EU Select Committee of the House during the transition period, when we heard direct from people living and working in Northern Ireland about the concerns which the amendments in this group address.

I want to speak particularly to Amendment 175ZA. The points raised in it apply more widely than to the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border. I certainly do not want to suggest that there is greater concern about criminals in the Republic than at other borders. I am not quite sure why these proposals come to be in the same group but I understand why there is a concern to get through the remaining amendments. The point is relevant to the border and there is a practical problem, as the noble Viscount just said.

My noble friend Lord Paddick is concerned about checks on the criminal record of an individual, now that we are no longer a member of the EU or have access to SIS II or ECRIS. We have to fall back on the Interpol database, which requires specific uploading of information and is not integrated with our police national computer or with member states’ national systems.

The report of the EU Security and Justice sub-committee on post-Brexit arrangements in that area is due to be debated on 25 February. I know that the Minister will deal with the points in the report then. I was going to say that I was sorry to see she does not get that Friday off, but it is never off for a Minister, is it? The points in it are relevant to Northern Ireland.

My noble friend Lord Oates has Amendment 180, which is not in this group, on physical proof of status. This amendment relates to the points that I know he will make and asks the very pertinent question: what happens when the digital system malfunctions? I am normally a glass-half-full person but that is pertinent to everyone, especially at this land border.

I noted, and think it deserves to be mentioned here, that the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House has reported in the following terms:

“The House may question why the detail of the Electronic Travel Authorisation scheme introduced under clause 71 is not set out in the Bill.”


It is because the scheme has not been worked up—at any rate not to completion, as I understand it. The report continues:

“If it is appropriate to make such provision in immigration rules, the House may expect it to be subject to a form of affirmative procedure, at least for the establishment of the scheme.”


The committee is saying much more delicately what I said the other day: we should not be expected to deal with criminal offences, as it was that day, arising from the scheme when we do not know what the scheme is. That also applies here.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Suttie, for raising this issue, and I think some very good questions have been asked. I have a different question. In the absence of an electronic travel authorisation, are there problems in enforcing immigration, asylum or indeed criminal law? Can we be reassured that there would not be an incentive for people who want to come to the UK to come in large numbers through the Republic of Ireland? That would be my one concern in trying to address the very real issues across the border that have been identified, and which you see in other countries where you have borders—especially where there has been a practice of having no border.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I will very briefly give support from these Benches to all three of these amendments. They all demonstrate the practical consequences of Brexit. I declare a bit of an interest on Amendment 175—not that I am neither British nor Irish but that I am both British and Irish. In fact, I have been Irish from birth without for a long time realising it, but I have now just got my passport, so I am a dual national.

But it makes no sense—and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, gave very graphic examples of how silly it is to try to stop people crossing the border. It is not just about tourism; it is about work and business. Surely it is not in the spirit of the good relationship that we have with the Republic of Ireland, or of the Belfast agreement, or of everything that we want to work, Brexit or no Brexit—or despite Brexit. We want to have very good relations on the island of Ireland. I am not sure how it would actually work, but trying to stop people would be a nuisance, to put it at its mildest, and harmful from every direction.

On the point about the ETA system having to rely on the clunky Interpol system, my noble friend reminded me that we are going to be debating the report from the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, in a couple of weeks. We do not have access to SEIS or ECRIS, or other EU instruments, and this is not good for operating an ETA system. So it would be very good to hear from the Minister whether he has anything positive to say about how to remedy the practical consequences, to use a neutral word, of Brexit, both for internal travel on the island of Ireland and for how the ETA system can work optimally.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Perhaps I, too, should declare that I am both British and Irish since birth. I understand the difficulties locally that potentially arise and have been so well illustrated by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, but I wanted to ask the Minister whether he could put this in the context of the common travel area. Does it really exist in practice as a reciprocal arrangement? I specifically ask because I have never been able to land at Shannon Airport, even on a direct flight from Heathrow, without standing in a queue and presenting a passport—yet when I return and land at Heathrow, I walk straight through and am guided past the passport gates. To what extent is this common travel area being operated by the Irish Republic on a genuinely reciprocal basis? Could it not in a sense be tied up with this issue?

19:00

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will add my voice of support to my noble friend Lady Ritchie. It is good to have the perspective that she brings to this Committee. Our institutional memory in Parliament, in this place and the other place, with respect to Ireland is not as great as it was. It is a perspective that needs to be brought here more often, so this is an important little debate. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, will agree.

I say to the Minister that, whatever the rights and wrongs of all this—and I agree with what my noble friend said—it plays into the narrative that the Government do not have a grip with respect to Ireland. The consequences of that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, pointed out, are absolutely and potentially really difficult. Even if people are non-British or non-Irish, if they have to have an ETA to cross the border, how on earth is that going to work? Practically, at the end of the day, if it is worth having, somebody will have to check it. I know that it does not apply to British and Irish citizens, but suppose, as a British man, I have an American wife or a French girlfriend; we go to Northern Ireland and somebody checks it—with the history of the police and security forces checking documents. The Government have to wake up to this. Unless the Minister can get up and say, “We’re going to sort this and this is what’s going to happen”, it will drift on and on and the consequences will be potentially really difficult.

It is no wonder that the Irish Government and various organisations across the whole of the UK and Ireland are saying that the Government need to get a grip on this. It is ludicrous. I gave an example. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, will know far better than me. What about somebody who for years has lived a mile across the border, has a mixed marriage in terms of nationality—somebody who is a British or Irish citizen married to an American—and wants to go shopping or to a hotel four miles down the road that happens to be in Northern Ireland? Do they need an ETA?

This is one of those things about which people outside Parliament say, “Do you know what you are doing?” Frankly, this is something that is so serious, and all the time we are looking at it we are trying to resolve it. It is difficult. It raises issues that you do not appreciate. If only you understood how difficult it is. Well, I do understand how difficult it might be, and I also understand this: the border, for reasons that we all know, whether it is drawn in Ireland or down the Irish Sea, has consequences that are enormous for the people of Ireland and for people here.

The Government have to sort this out in a way that commands respect and agreement from all communities. The amendment that my noble friend Lady Ritchie has brought before us is important, but I implore the Government: whatever the rights and wrongs of getting into Shannon Airport, whoever is right about whether it is seen as a back-door way of getting into the UK, et cetera—and I should say that the Irish Government have visa requirements as well, which will influence how people come in, so that may be one of the answers —it just has to be resolved. There has to be more than a ministerial, “We understand the importance of this and the difficulties, and that it needs to be sorted out”. The frank reality is that the time for sorting it out was yesterday, not today or tomorrow. It is about time that the Government got a grip of this, otherwise there will be very serious consequences further down the road.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords very much for participating in this short but powerful debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and second the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that you bring—I said “you” again; I am very sorry—an interesting and unusual perspective to this debate. I thank her for that. In answer to the noble Baroness’s question about the letter to my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford, the noble Baroness will have a reply in a week that will outline the details she asked for.

The Government are clear: there will continue to be no routine immigration controls on journeys to the UK from within the common travel area, and none whatever on the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. That will remain the position when the ETA scheme is introduced.

It may be helpful if I explain that all individuals, other than British and Irish citizens, arriving in the UK, including those crossing the land border into Northern Ireland, already need to enter in line with the UK’s immigration framework. I think this goes some way to answering the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about the hypothetical American wife or French girlfriend. I think it also deals with the point made by my noble friend, Lady Neville-Rolfe. For example, visa nationals are required to obtain a visa for the UK when travelling via Ireland, otherwise they are entering illegally. We are therefore applying the same principle to individuals requiring an ETA who enter the UK via Ireland without one.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, referenced Article 2 of the protocol. The Government consider that the ETA scheme is compliant, and they will continue to consider their obligations under the protocol with regard to this. I want to reassure the noble Baroness that the process for obtaining an ETA will be quick and light touch. I am told that it will be not dissimilar to acquiring an American ESTA, which I am sure many noble Lords are familiar with. As many people will know, that is very straightforward and easy. Once granted, an ETA will be valid for multiple journeys over an extended period, minimising the burden on those making frequent trips, including those across the Northern Ireland border. I perhaps should have said that I have had considerable experience of crossing that border on numerous occasions.

In terms of the specific questions on the CTA, as far as I am aware, it has nothing to do with Brexit. It predates Brexit does it not? It goes back to 1923 and partition I think, from my dim and distant memory. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong. All CTA members are firmly committed to protecting the common travel area. I will reiterate this point: even with the introduction of ETAs, there will be no routine immigration controls on arrivals to the UK from elsewhere in the common travel area—only intelligence-led controls with no immigration controls whatever on the Ireland/Northern Ireland land border. Given the tone of the debate, I hope noble Lords will allow me to keep reiterating that point.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Could he outline to the Committee how these ETAs will operate. Where will the work be carried out? How will people complete the necessary requirements and what will be the cost? These are the issues that the people are asking. They do not want ETAs to be a disincentive to tourism, the local economy or business generally.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I am going to come on to a number of those points subsequently. In terms of cost, I am told it will be competitive with international norms. I have just referred to the ESTA programme in the States. I looked that up this morning in anticipation of this, and it is currently $14, so it is not overwhelming. In terms of the enforcement, which I think is at the heart of the matter, I will come to that in a second if I may.

There will be no controls whatever on the Northern Ireland land border. Individuals will be able to continue to pass through border control at first point of entry to the common travel area. As is currently the case, individuals arriving in the UK, including those crossing the land border into Northern Ireland, will need to continue to enter in line with the UK’s immigration framework. Obviously, that includes the ETA.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, have asked about the impact on tourism. The Government acknowledge that a clear communication strategy is obviously going to be key to tackling any misunderstanding about the requirements to travel to Northern Ireland. We are planning to work across government, utilising internal and external stakeholders and a variety of communication channels to ensure that the ETA requirement is communicated very clearly.

[Viscount Brookeborough (CB)]

Can I just make one point? Northern Ireland is the size of Yorkshire. What the Minister is really stating is that somebody who goes on holiday to Yorkshire must not go to a neighbouring county for any reason without complying with this regulation. I am terribly sorry, but this is complete and utter rubbish. It is nonsensical and it is not going to work. What do people do if they go touring in Yorkshire? They tour outside it. If tourists go to Ireland, why should they not simply tour Ireland? No amount of communication will do—I am very sorry—and there is nobody to police it. What the Government are talking about is simply unworkable and disastrous.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Viscount—sort of. There will be no hard border. As I said, there is not going to be a hard border in Northern Ireland, and within the CTA there is effectively no change.

In answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, about enforcement, which was brought up subsequently as well, I have said it three or four times now: there will be no routine border controls on journeys from within the common travel area, which goes some way to answering the Yorkshire example. There will be none at all on the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Everyone entering the UK, regardless of where they enter from—again, as I have said—is required to meet the UK’s immigration framework. In answer to “What’s the point of having it, then?”, anyone entering the UK without an ETA, or any form of immigration permission where required, will be entering illegally and may be subject to enforcement if encountered during intelligence-led operational activity.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I say gently to the Minister that he has to be really careful with language on things such as conforming to immigration policy and the UK border. The historic context of some of the language that he used means that he has to be really careful when talking about moving across borders or even saying that there will not be a border control but talking about complying with UK immigration policies.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I completely understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is making. I promise him that I am sticking very closely to the script. I am well aware of that.

I think I have dealt with most of the questions, albeit probably not to noble Lords’ satisfaction. What I cannot do, I am afraid, is commit to coming back on Report with anything, but obviously I am going to reflect very carefully on the tone of this debate—to go to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker—and take that back to the department.

Turning to Amendment 175ZA, I assure the House that the Government will conduct robust identity and suitability checks before granting an ETA. We will use the information supplied in the ETA application form to check against our watchlist system. However, as I am sure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will understand, I cannot go into details of the exact checks that applicants will undergo or how those checks will be conducted, as to do so could undermine our ability to secure the UK border. Such a detailed commentary could provide those people whom we want to prevent from travelling to the UK sufficient information to attempt to circumvent our controls, undermining the very objective of the ETA scheme and the wider universal permission-to-travel requirement to enhance the security of our border.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about what has happened since we left the European Union and lost access to the European Criminal Records Information System and the Schengen Information System. The UK participated only in the law enforcement aspects of SIS II, meaning that we could not, and did not, use SIS II information for immigration purposes. Therefore, having returned to the Interpol channels, we are now routinely exchanging information with EU member states on persons of interest, including missing and wanted individuals, and on lost and stolen documents. Moreover, through the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, we continue to share criminal records with the EU for law enforcement purposes, including to assist criminal proceedings and for public protection. This is almost identical to the arrangement that we had under ECRIS as an EU member state.

I assure noble Lords that the confirmation of an individual’s status prior to travel will be a matter for the Home Office and their carrier. The onus will not be on the individual to produce evidence of their status to a carrier; instead, carriers will be expected to check and confirm with the Home Office that an individual has an appropriate permission before they bring them to the UK. It is our long-term ambition for all carriers operating scheduled services across all modes—air, rail and maritime—to use interactive advance passenger information, or iAPI, systems to provide passenger information to the Home Office in advance of travel. In return, passengers will receive confirmation of permission to travel prior to boarding.

iAPI is already a well-established mechanism used around the world, particularly by other countries that already operate travel authorisation schemes. None the less, the Home Office will undertake rigorous systems testing to ensure that our messaging to carriers works before the scheme goes live. We expect the likelihood of a technical malfunction occurring to be negligible.

In the unlikely event that a technical malfunction does occur—

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I wanted to ask my noble friend about what happens when there is a technical malfunction, but I think he was going to answer that question. Having been caught out when the ESTA system went down when I was trying to go to California, I ended up missing my flight and having to go via Seattle, which took another eight or nine hours. It is important to have strong technical systems if you are going to rely on them, but it may be that there is a waiver or some arrangement that can be introduced.

19:15

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I completely agree with my noble friend: obviously it is important to have well-established protocols in place if such a thing happens. I can assure noble Lords that the Home Office will ensure that passengers are not disproportionately impacted or prevented travelling to the UK. As is already set out in Clause 72, we will not penalise carriers where, due to a Home Office systems outage, it is not possible for them to establish an individual’s status.

On Amendment 186, the Government are steadfastly committed to the Belfast agreement and the two distinct birthright provisions in it: the right to identify and be accepted as British, Irish or both; and the right to hold British and Irish citizenship. In recognising the birthright of the people of Northern Ireland in respect of identity and confirming their birthright in respect of citizenship, the Belfast agreement is clear in guaranteeing that these rights already exist. It expressly and clearly said how and where the law should be changed in many areas but it made no such stipulation on this particular matter of identity.

This amendment would require the Home Secretary to propose stipulating a particular view of identity in law. Doing so would risk impinging on the freedom of the people of Northern Ireland to choose what their identity means to them. It would also amount to treating an integral part of the United Kingdom differently. The Government cannot accept such a proposition; nor can they accept an amendment that is contrary to the intention of the Belfast agreement.

I am aware that some of these answers have not satisfied noble Lords. As I said, I will reflect the tone of this debate back to the Home Office very carefully. I am also aware that I have not answered my noble friend Lord Moylan’s question about reciprocity; I am sure that he will forgive me for not even attempting to do so.

I invite the noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate from across the Committee. I say to the Minister that I happen to agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough: the proposal in Clause 72 is a nonsense and will be unworkable, not because people will not want it work but because it will be dysfunctional both physically and operationally. It will act as a disincentive to tourism and business, as well as to societal arrangements because many non-Irish and non-British people who live in the Republic of Ireland have family in Northern Ireland. There will be preventions there.

I urge the Minister to reflect on all the contributions that have been made today in his discussions with the Home Office. Again, I suggest that we will probably come back on Report with a further amendment on this issue because we do not want impediments placed in the way of our tourism industry, our economy, our business and the normal day-to-day travel of people who live on both sides of the land border, which is largely invisible as it stands. Noble Lords who have travelled a lot will know exactly what we are talking about.

For those reasons, I rather reluctantly beg leave to withdraw my amendment but reserve the right to bring it back on Report.

Amendment 175 withdrawn.

Amendment 175ZA not moved.

Clause 71 agreed.

Clauses 72 and 73 agreed.

Clause 74: Counter-terrorism questioning of detained entrants away from place of arrival

Amendment 175ZB

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

175ZB: Clause 74, page 79, line 7, leave out subsection (3)

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the short point that my noble friend Lord Paddick wanted to make, as he generally does, in leaving out Clause 74(3) is that, again, this seems to conflate immigration and terrorism. It extends powers to question people about involvement in terrorism at the border and applies the powers to people being detained under a provision of the immigration Acts, and so on. The objection runs like a thread through the Bill, to so many points. Immigration and terrorism are not the same. Not all terrorists are immigrants. Terrorists who have succeeded in the UK have been British, and if the Government allow, in legislation, the bias implied by the conflation of these two, no wonder others display the same bias. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

This clause would extend the use of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act to people who have been detained under the immigration Acts and transported outside of a port or border area. Schedule 7 can be an important tool in the prevention of terrorism, but it has had a chequered past at times. It has been improved in recent years by the work of independent reviewers of terrorism legislation, two of whom we are now fortunate to have as Members of this House.

I have three or four questions for the Government on the provisions of Clause 74. Have the Government consulted on the extension of the power? Has the change been requested and, if so, by whom or by what body? Can the Minister give more detail on the scale of the problem this is designed to address? How many individuals are officers unable to stop and question under the current arrangements? How was the period of five days arrived at? For those who travel through conventional routes, does not the power have to be used pretty much immediately, in which case five days is a considerable extension? Finally, the powers apply provided an officer “believes” that the person arrived at sea, was apprehended within 24 hours of arrival, and it has been no more than five days since they were apprehended. What will that “belief” that the officer is required to have be based on? It would be helpful if the Government could give some responses to those questions.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank both Members of the Committee for their remarks. Schedule 7 examinations have been instrumental in securing evidence to convict terrorists, yielding intelligence to detect terrorist threats and supporting the disruption or deterrence of terrorist activity. Currently, officers may exercise Schedule 7 powers only when an individual is located within a port or border area as defined in the Act. Clause 74 will provide an added layer of protection to the existing processes in place for dealing with those who arrive irregularly by sea in the UK. I think that goes some way to answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—they are arriving irregularly outside of ports. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, has stated:

“In principle, people arriving irregularly in the United Kingdom should be liable to counter-terrorism examination as much as those arriving at sea ports and airports.”


This clause ensures that, for those arriving irregularly by sea, such as via illegal channel crossings, this will continue be the case.

There are several reasons why those who engage in illegal channel crossings can be moved to a different location from their place of arrival very quickly after arriving. They can range from weight of numbers to the need to move the vulnerable or those in need of medical attention to more appropriate facilities. It is impractical and inhumane to keep large groups of people port side in order to give counterterrorism police an appropriate opportunity to exercise their current powers under Schedule 7.

I reassure noble Lords who tabled the amendment that this is by no means an attempt to treat all migrants arriving in this manner as terrorists, or to stop and examine large numbers of people away from ports and borders. Schedule 7 is not designed and cannot be used as a universal screening mechanism, and Clause 74 has been deliberately drawn to provide an appropriate time window for counterterrorism police to exercise their powers under Schedule 7.

To remove the effect of Clause 74 would impact our ability to determine whether those who are entering the UK in this way are involved in terrorism, impacting our national security. It would continue a scenario where those who arrive in the UK by conventional means are subject to powers to determine involvement in terrorist activity, whereas those who have arrived irregularly by sea, and about whom we have very little documented information, may not be.

I cannot answer precisely who has been consulted on this, other than the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, and obviously the counterterrorism police will have a keen interest in how this debate develops. To answer on the numbers, this concerns those arriving irregularly by sea, outside established ports, under the existing rules. I could not tell you how many there are. The other questions impinge on operational matters, on which I am not qualified to comment. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister said there is a deliberate time limit to these powers. I may be reading this wrong, but they apply to

“the period of 5 days beginning with the day after the day on which the person was apprehended”.

It is not five days from entry or arrival. I am not sure whether that would alter those points that the Minister suggested we take into account. But, since we are not even half way through the groups of amendments, I had better just beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 175ZB withdrawn.

Clause 74 agreed.

Clause 75 agreed.

Clause 76: Tribunal charging power in respect of wasted resources

Debate on whether Clause 76 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has her name to the opposition to Clause 76 standing part of the Bill. I am happy to pick this up briefly, as she has had to leave.

Clause 76 gives the tribunals a charging power in respect of wasted resources. I do not know whether it is aimed at lefty, liberal lawyers, a group to which I would be proud to belong, although I do not think I quite qualify—lefty maybe, liberal certainly, but I am an ex-lawyer.

I am trying to read my notes, but I cannot understand what I wrote last night.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Perhaps while the noble Baroness looks at her handwriting, as a lefty, liberal lawyer, I say briefly to the Minister that the immigration and asylum system is the most unlevel playing field in our legal system. Tribunals were set up, as the Minister will remember, with the aim of people being able to represent themselves, not as places for expensive lawyers.

[The remainder of today’s proceedings should be published tomorrow.]

[Continued in column 1941]