Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (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 up to 10 minutes.
Taiwan
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness D’Souza
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking, if any, to support democracy in Taiwan.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-chair of the British-Taiwanese All-Party Parliamentary Group.
Taiwan is the Ukraine of the Far East, and it behoves us to note the threats that it endures daily from its neighbours across the strait and its commitment to the democratic process and its democratic institutions. In the last 15 months, there has been an increase of 150% in military intrusions from the PRC over those recorded in 2020. Both the UK Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, as well as G7 leaders, have emphasised the importance of peace and security in the Indo-Pacific region, with specific reference to Taiwan, as set out in the integrated review and in communiqués.
The Minister for Asia, Amanda Milling, answering to a recent debate in the other place, affirmed that
“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 … suffer.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/2/22; col. 1150.]
These are welcome words, as are the many shared endeavours that the Minister went on to mention, including increased trade, action against climate change, bilingual education, digital health technology and cultural exchanges. However, today I press the Minister further on the Government’s commitments to Taiwan and its flourishing democracy in the face of increased threats and sabotage of its industry and trade relations.
Taiwan is one of the five semiconductor producing countries in the world and supplies over 50% of the world’s high-end chips, used in the aerospace, bioscience and defence industries. It is a world leader in renewable energy and especially in the development of electronic vehicles. It has joined in the international sanctions imposed on Russia. The world also has much to learn from the success that Taiwan enjoyed in stemming the spread of Covid. These are all promising industries and policies that continue to need further investment. The efforts by the PRC to undermine Taiwan’s production capacity, whether this be in tourism, electronics or agriculture, should prompt a more regional approach to such coercion through trade agreements. Furthermore, Taiwan has submitted its application to the CPTPP, which would be to the advantage of this trade bloc, which has high regulatory standards, as we know. Taiwan hopes for the support of the UK after the UK has itself become a member. In this context, I ask the Minister whether the Government will provide this support and when they will sign and begin meaningful discussions on the bilateral investment agreement.
The US Taiwan Relations Act 1979 guarantees the provision of adequate defence equipment, which is extremely important in maintaining Taiwan’s credible self-defence capability. What contributions is the UK making towards this credible capacity in, for example, bolstering Taiwan’s navy and missile defence systems?
Taiwan is developing its technology on an impressive scale, and this supports the idea of some kind of shared technology network with other countries in the region, such as the US, Japan and South Korea. On her appointment, the Foreign Secretary referred to the notion of such a grouping to deal with issues such as climate change and, importantly, protection against cybercrime—has this idea been taken further? The benefit during peacetime is obvious, but so too is the protection that this network might provide in the event of further imminent threats from the People’s Republic of China.
The UK Prime Minister has himself acknowledged the global impact of events in Ukraine, which may be particularly significant for Taiwan. Following the tragic fall of Hong Kong, Taiwan is now the front line in defending democracy against China’s expanding authoritarianism. While Taiwan’s economic resilience may not be enough to deter further intrusions from the PRC, it commits those nations that hold such investments in the country to protect them robustly. How does the FCDO see Taiwan’s future in the face of increased military threats, not only in the strait but in the region more generally? How does the UK see the protection and strengthening of Taiwan economically and militarily as a key instrument in the declared pivot to the Indo-Pacific?
Due to events in Ukraine, we may find soon that words of encouragement and support are simply not enough. If we are serious about deterring such actions, we need to make strong, definite commitments to those countries that face authoritarian expansion in the immediate future.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, who has put the challenge extremely well. I endorse much of what she says.
When I was a junior Minister during the pandemic, extraordinary things happened, and I broke a great many ministerial precedents. However, one thing that I did not manage to do was put a call through to my opposite number in the Taiwanese department for health. Officials were extremely hesitant to make that happen and, despite my best efforts, I never made that telephone call, even though Taiwan had a huge amount to teach the British response to the pandemic. That is a personal example of an outdated, cautious approach to our dealings with Taiwan, one of the world’s most important democracies. That strategic ambiguity and climate of caution around our country’s engagement with Taiwan is suddenly looking out of date and dangerous. In the interests of time, I will not go into the details but we all know what I am talking about.
I echo the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and recommend five of my own easy-to-take measures with which the Government could demonstrate their commitment to Taiwan—commitments that might cause a small amount of discomfort but are essential for demonstrating the strong alliance between our two countries.
First, it is time that a Cabinet Minister went to Taiwan. We have had junior Ministers there since 1994, including the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I pay tribute to Greg Hands, who has been three times—once by cyberspace—but he is just a junior Minister. The USA has made Cabinet-level visits since 1994—I remember Alex Azar going, and he made a big impact. Michael Mullen, the former chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, flew to Taipei on Tuesday. I should like to see someone such as Sajid Javid go to Taiwan in the very near future to talk to the Taiwanese about public health; it is the kind of measure from which we could learn a lot and would show our friendship.
Secondly, I pay tribute to the Minister and ministerial colleagues in the FCDO and elsewhere for their support for Taiwan’s membership of international bodies. But they are often blackballed by China and we therefore need to be creative. I recommend to the Minister that we look at the G7, at which Australia, India, South Africa and South Korea are invited guests, and the D10, where Indonesia, Poland and Spain are invited guests. Inviting Taiwan to attend those sessions is not within our gift but the British Government should certainly be pushing actively for that.
Thirdly, on security, the integrated review recognises that coercive economic measures are a real threat. I note the commitment in the recent communiqué with the Australian Government to work together to ensure that when coercive economic measures are put in place, Britain and Australia are linked together to support each other. We should be working equally hard with Taiwan in putting together the protocols to protect each other, particularly for Taiwan, and to bring about a deterrent for anyone thinking of trying it on.
Fourthly, I echo the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, on CPTPP. Further expansion of the existing investment treaty into a bilateral investment treaty would be good. That should, in time, be expanded to a free trade agreement along the lines we have with New Zealand.
Fifthly, and lastly, on defence, the situation in Ukraine has shown that when NATO members such as Germany and Poland are affected, we are all affected. We know that the USA’s Taiwan Relations Act makes for the USA very strong commitments but we are not clear about the consequential commitments for the UK. I do not think we should be shy of thinking through those consequential commitments. In fact, there are very real benefits from having an earnest and documented discussion of that.
These are five tangible steps which are well within the gift of the Government. I would be enormously grateful if the Minister could commit to all five of them by the end of this Parliament, in order that we have a clear programme of activity to show our support to Taiwan.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for this important debate, particularly in these difficult times, when democracy in some parts of the world is challenged by military forces. The United Kingdom has a stable and sound relationship with Taiwan. It is in our interest to ensure the preservation of peace and stability across the strait and that China ends its coercion against Taiwan.
All democratic nations and those countries in and near the South China Sea must be concerned about the building of the base, which could affect peace and stability, and in particular the navigational facilities there. It is also clear that frequent excursions in invading the Taiwanese airspace is unacceptable. I have visited the coastal region and been shocked to see missiles pointing towards Taiwan.
I have visited this beautiful island on a number of occasions, and strongly recommend its national museum as being of particular interest. It has a fully functioning democracy and, having met the present and previous Presidents, I am impressed with the way its Parliament functions. The Liberal Democrats have a special relationship with the Democratic Progressive Party, the DPP; in fact, it is our sister party in power in Taiwan. I was at the inaugural function of President Tsai when she was elected. She knew David Steel, who was leading our delegation. Suffice to say that most of the conversation was about her time at the LSE, when Lord Steel was leading the Liberal Democrats.
I have a request to make of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. Let me declare my interest. I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Abolition of the Death Penalty and have visited a number of countries to promote this cause. On my visit during President Ma’s time in office, and then during that of President Tsai, it was clear that Taiwan was working towards abolition of the death penalty. I want to ensure that Taiwan is now at a very advanced stage on this, and the Minister should open discussions towards this aim.
Let me explain why I say this now. It is some years now since Professor Roger Hood, emeritus professor of criminology at Oxford, produced his report on the abolition of the death penalty in Taiwan. We now have a report on the opinion of Taiwanese legislators on the death penalty. These legislators hold a particularly influential position and the study reveals that the majority of them would like to see the death penalty abolished. The risk of wrongful convictions, the abuse of human rights and a recognition that the death penalty has no unique deterrent effect were the main reasons cited by the legislators. These are the same reasons we advocated when abolishing the death penalty in this country. I have no doubt whatever that these are central to the work of the Minister at the Foreign Office.
I do not wish to cite the statistics reflected in this report. Suffice to say that a nudge at the top level would achieve this aim. I should be grateful for the Minister’s support.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the House is greatly indebted to my noble friend Lady D’Souza for bringing this Question on Taiwan for debate today. I draw attention to the relevant all-party groups of which I am a member, and also my membership of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. I commend its work and that of Luke de Pulford on behalf of the people of China and Taiwan.
I draw a careful distinction between my huge admiration for Chinese people and civilisation and the infamies of Mao and the Chinese Communist Party, which is responsible for so many depredations, from the mass slaughter of millions to the Cultural Revolution, Tiananmen, the subjugation of Tibet, its disfigurement of democracy in Hong Kong, the genocide of the Uighur people in Xinjiang, and the incarceration of journalists, lawyers, religious believers, artists and political dissidents; and which daily threatens the more than 23 million people of Taiwan.
In 2019, in Taiwan, I met Lam Wing-kee and the wife of Lee Ming-che. Lam had been imprisoned in China for selling books—including, I might add, a copy of 1984—and Lee Ching-yu described to me how her husband, a Taiwanese pro-democracy activist, had been arrested in 2017 while on a visit to China. He remains incarcerated to this day.
Is it any wonder that the people of Taiwan—a territory which has never been part of the People’s Republic of China—live in dread of a military invasion by the CCP? That apprehension is underlined by the illegal seizure of a sovereign state, accompanied by war crimes, in Ukraine by Putin, who, as we saw at the genocide Games, is a close ally of Xi Jinping? Of course, the greatest tragedy is that if “two systems, one country” had not been destroyed in Hong Kong, it could have offered enormous hope to Taiwan; instead of which, it demonstrates the deceit of the CCP in upending international treaties.
In a debate in July 2014, I urged the Government to increase our global efforts to strengthen democracy, not least via the BBC World Service, something the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and I have regularly raised with the Minister. I contrasted soft, or smart, power with
“a different kind of power, characterised by visceral hatred and unspeakable violence … a climate in which fragile peace and seedling democracies, from the China Sea to Ukraine, are at daily risk.”—[Official Report, 10/7/14; col. 292.]
Eight years later, in this very Room, I urged the Government to lead other democracies in recognising Taiwan,
“turning the tables on the CCP’s bullying posturing”,—[Official Report, 3/2/22; col. GC 308.]
and warned of the implications for Taiwan and many other seedling democracies if Russia invaded Ukraine.
Have we woken up to these new realities? I particularly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said about the importance of a Cabinet Minister visiting Taiwan. I hope our Minister, the Minister of State, who is hugely respected, will consider adding Taiwan to the list of the many places he journeys to. When will we press for the inclusion of Taiwan in international organisations and institutions, particularly the World Health Organization? Why are we not making a free trade agreement with Taiwan? We must stand in solidarity with Taiwan, which has a free people in a vibrant democracy. It threatens no one and believes in peaceful coexistence. As my noble friend said, authoritarianism is on the march. By standing with Taiwan, we will be leading other nations in defying the CCP.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I respectfully remind everybody of the three-minute speaking limit, because we want to hear from the Minister. I apologise for having to do that, but the first three speakers have overrun.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lady D’Souza on securing this debate at such a defining moment for global affairs. I also declare an interest as the co-chairman of the British-Taiwanese All-Party Parliamentary Group.
I have had the honour of visiting Taiwan on many occasions, for business and as a politician, from 1972 onwards. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, it is a wonderful land and the home of countless kind, inspirational and creative people. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s democracy index, Taiwan now ranks as a leading democracy in Asia and the 11th worldwide. It also boasts the seventh-largest economy in Asia and the 21st globally. For the post-Brexit United Kingdom, it is a country with which we should be seeking closer ties.
In 1992, shortly after stepping down as Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher travelled to Taiwan to celebrate its progress towards democratisation. However, following her death in 2013, and at the insistence of the Chinese Government, the Cabinet Office decided that Taiwan would not be permitted diplomatic representation at her funeral. Just two years later, Chinese President Xi Jinping was honoured with a full state visit to the United Kingdom.
We meet against the backdrop of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Xi has supported Putin’s campaign against allowing Ukraine to join NATO, one of Putin’s prime justifications for his current butchery. President Xi and Putin are increasingly aligned on many issues, and your Lordships can be sure that Beijing is following the horrific events in Ukraine with special interest.
The Chinese air force breached the median line of the Taiwan Strait 950 times in 2021, a 150% increase on the previous year. Taiwanese residents and businesses are subject to countless cyberattacks every day, with the overwhelming number suspected to emanate from China. Similarly, Putin’s Russia has long targeted Ukraine with relatively new forms of warfare, with Ukraine’s electricity grid and communications networks favoured as a means of damaging the country’s ability to function.
This is a short debate, and I will save the Minister the need to remind us that Her Majesty’s Government remain of the view that it is for Taiwan and China to resolve their differences. However, if the United Kingdom truly is the mother of democracies, surely it is our duty to stand strong against the bullying of independent states by aggressive regimes. I am proud of what our country is doing to support Ukraine in its darkest hour, but I say respectfully to the Minister, as the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, stressed most ably, that the United Kingdom should also put much greater effort into deepening co-operation and partnership working with our freedom-loving friends in Taiwan. As a first step, Her Majesty’s Government should grant full diplomatic status to Taiwan and to Mr Kelly Hsieh, the excellent representative of Taiwan in the United Kingdom, giving him equivalence with the Chinese ambassador.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, on securing this important debate. I have listened with great admiration to all the speeches so far. It is important to put on the record Taiwan’s commitment to human rights and democracy, its astonishing economic success and the friendship of its people and Government towards the West generally, and to us in Britain particularly.
During my years in this House, I have spoken often about relations with Taiwan. Until 2016 I was an officer of the British-Taiwanese All-Party Parliamentary Group, latterly as its co-chair. I handed that role over to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, who I am delighted to follow in this debate, when I was appointed the British Government’s trade envoy to Taiwan. I shall speak briefly about trade today.
The top five products exported from the UK to Taiwan are beverages, medicinal and pharmaceutical products, cars, mechanical power generators, chemicals and scientific instruments. Last October, I supported the Minister for Trade Policy, Penny Mordaunt MP, at the annual trade talks with our Taiwanese counterparts and made great progress on market access in energy and offshore wind power, financial services, pharmaceuticals, agriculture and Scotch whisky. Taiwan was whisky’s third-largest market by value in 2021 and has a particular liking for single malts. Taiwan is also a top-six market for Scottish salmon.
I attended the trade talks in Taipei in 2018, when we signed the agreement that opened up the Taiwanese market for UK pork. Exports of this are likely to be worth £50 million over the five years from the date the market opened to us. We hope to make progress with lamb and organic products later this year.
There are many other sectors I could speak about if I had time. I will just mention one exciting initiative we are supporting: Taiwan’s bilingualism 2030 strategy to make English an official language. With great help from the British Council, a letter of intent between the British Office Taipei and the Taiwanese Ministry of Education has been signed, focusing on English-language education and assessment collaboration. It will create connections, strengthen the relations between British and Taiwanese people and lead to significant growth in UK-Taiwan trade and investment. I am particularly pleased that the English being learned by the Taiwanese is English English, not American English.
Finally, let us remember what was in the latest Freedom in the World report from the US-based Freedom House: out of 210 countries and territories around the world, Taiwan was in equal 17th place, with 38 points out of a maximum 40 for political rights and 56 out of 60 for civil liberties—one point ahead of the United Kingdom. Norway, Sweden and Finland received full marks in both categories. China, by contrast, was tied in 185th place with a score of nine points and rated as “not free”. It is obvious what lessons we draw from that.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for securing this debate. It is even more timely and relevant than we could have realised exactly four weeks ago, when a number of us here today debated in this very Room the threat to democracy from autocrats and kleptocrats. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine inevitably raises concerns about the threat of China to Taiwan, which is also living in the shadow of an overbearing and menacing neighbour. That said, I do not believe that Taiwan will be the next Ukraine, as there are huge geographic, geopolitical, cultural and economic differences.
As we have heard, Taiwan’s democratic credentials are indeed impressive, moving up to eighth in the world, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, and first in the Asia-Pacific region. A liberal democracy, and world leader in gender equality in government, Taiwan also boasts a dynamic economy, agile industry and entrepreneurial zest. Yet the UK and especially the US must do more to support Taiwan, given the island’s contested status. As we know, the UK does not recognise Taiwan as a country nor maintain diplomatic relations, but we do lobby for its participation in international organisations, as an observer at the very least. Can the Minister inform us whether the UK is planning to step up such lobbying?
I ask this because the need for Taiwan, with its close cultural and economic relations with China, to fully participate in international organisations was demonstrated to devastating effect by the outbreak of Covid-19 in Wuhan. As we now know, China was very slow to admit to person-to-person transmission—in fact, fatally slow—and it was Taiwan that first alerted the WHO on 31 December 2019. Its warning was largely ignored as it was not a member of the WHO, while China was not just a member but—how can I put it?—a highly influential one. The weeks of denial from China and dithering from the WHO in early 2020 tragically contributed to millions of deaths and trillions in the economic damage that ensued.
The need for transparency has never been greater. Russia and China share a brutal coalition of disinformation and we must do our utmost to support states and countries such as Taiwan and Ukraine, which share our respect for the truth and a belief that freedom of speech is a very basic human right.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I think a theme is emerging. The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, has secured a very timely debate, as the noble Lord has just said. The Chinese leadership will be watching this current crisis. Putin claims that Ukraine belongs to Russia, while China claims Taiwan—autocracies threatening to swallow up democracies.
We know the dictum that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. We are seeing the fruits of that right now in Europe. We recall that Russia took Crimea and there was no prolonged international outcry. It has fought an eight-year war in the Donbass but the world paid little attention. We have seen democratic Hong Kong taken over, if more subtly than is happening in Ukraine. The international community as a whole did not come to the assistance of the people of Hong Kong, so we should take seriously China’s increasing intrusions into Taiwan’s airspace. Are these intimidating measures or do they signal something more?
Few thought that Russia would really aim to take the whole of Ukraine; we cannot be sanguine here. China is assiduous in making sure that no country recognises Taiwan. I note the Government’s position on this, which reflects the concerns at China’s potential reaction—not Taiwan’s interests or those of the wider world.
In China, as in Russia, you have a leader who has supreme power, who wishes to leave a legacy, who feels that their country has been undervalued, who is no doubt more savvy than the brutal Putin and who always applies the lessons from the break-up of the Soviet Union but, nevertheless, is someone who should not be underestimated. We already see that the economic sanctions rightly hurting Russia will also have an effect on us. What happens to Taiwan is also likely to affect us. It is therefore not only right but in our interests that we pay attention.
As others have mentioned, Covid is a stark reminder of how interconnected we all are; not only did a disease travel around the world in weeks and months but fighting that pandemic affected the supply chain so that even the availability of toys at Christmas in the United Kingdom was affected two years later. Taiwan, sitting alongside China, was already acutely aware of that interconnectedness and, in the case of the pandemic, was far better prepared than most other countries, as we have heard. That is another reason why it should be in international groupings. It would benefit from such engagement but so too would we. What are we doing to facilitate that? What progress are we making at the WHO?
Our need for a strong, rules-based international order is overwhelming. Our need to be vigilant is crystal clear. That must include the present and future of Taiwan.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, there is no turning back. The genie is out of the bottle, with the global community having arrived at a crossroads. Accountable governance is showing itself to be sacrosanct and resilient, with democratic ideals that will be defended in a world that will not stand idle nor allow encroachment. Self-serving government by the few, for the few, is reaching the end of the road. Military dominance alone will never prevail in our interdependent world. Russians will know that they have been taken down a cul-de-sac in a world that can cripple a country without the use of lethal force and weapons. China should be encouraged to reflect carefully before it takes the world to the abyss over Taiwan.
During his closing remarks in the debate on Ukraine the other day, the Minister observed:
“Blessed are the peacekeepers”.—[Official Report, 25/2/22; col. 523.]
In Latin, it is “Beati pacifici”; it is the motto of my family, coincidentally. A bridge must be opened to allow for an exit mechanism—a face-saving bridge, if you will. It is being suggested that China could become the Ukraine peacemaker, with the ability to pull Russia in. Nothing would be more welcome at this terrible hour.
While too much is often expected from the United Nations, the Security Council may in part be the problem. Fundamentally, the United Nations is supposed to keep us safe. It has not worked. Urgent reform is required. It needs change. In a world where shared resources and shared responsibilities must become the norm, no single member should be allowed to manipulate the process for self-serving national purposes, yet in its current form, that is exactly what the UN allows. At the very least, majority decision-making is now an imperative. If that be a challenge too far—remembering that both the United Nations and the League of Nations before it came into existence in response to wars that changed the global status quo—the alternative is to now consider a successor to the United Nations that creates a process fit for tomorrow’s world and places world preservation and co-existence first.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this is a very timely debate, for which I thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, against the background of increased military activity around Taiwan, as noted by a number of noble Lords. I declare an interest, having visited Taiwan three times, as declared in the register at the time. I have been privileged to meet President Tsai Ing-wen and former President Ma twice. I have nothing but respect for both, and for Taiwan’s entrepreneurial and intelligent people. I also commend Taiwan’s excellent response to the Covid pandemic, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and others.
As we have heard, Taiwanese-British links in, among other things, wind power, education, cultural exchange and even Scotch whisky, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, are remarkable and growing. Taiwan has a thriving civil society and democracy. Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for the others that have been tried. He also said that to jaw-jaw is better than to war-war. We are witnessing a deplorable, awful tragedy unfolding in Europe, in Ukraine, which once more underlines how conflict should never be resolved by force.
We should never forget that in war, the greatest casualties are always innocent civilians. During the Korean War, in the early 1950s, which I studied a long time ago for my doctoral thesis, 2.5 million Korean civilians died—10% of the entire pre-war population. It was during that war that the US Seventh Fleet moved to protect what was then Formosa and was deployed to the Formosa Strait, as it was then called.
Of course, truth is the first casualty in war. War is not only about military assault but increasingly about disinformation and hybrid warfare. Democracy and freedom of speech are under attack across the globe as never before. Let us work together peacefully to preserve it while we still can.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I also declare an interest. I have visited Taiwan on a number of occasions, both through invitations by the Government of Taiwan and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, indicated, through the auspices of the All-Party Group on the Abolition of the Death Penalty. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, on securing this timely debate. The context, as my noble friend Lady Northover indicated, is a time of great sensitivity within the region and, indeed, the world.
As my noble friend Lord Dholakia indicated, in the past, my friend and former colleague Lord Steel of Aikwood would have contributed to this debate. I recall the very frequent meetings we had in this Parliament when I worked for him, 25 years ago, about the establishment of the DPP, one of the region’s first proper democratic and liberal parties, which is now the governing party. President Tsai is also a beacon for democracy in the region for upholding liberal democratic principles. In 2015, Lord Steel received the Order of the Brilliant Star with Grand Cordon from the President of Taiwan. My noble friend Lord Foster was there—I think his role was to carry it back for him.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, indicated, relations with Taiwan are deep and should be deeper. Indeed, as has been referenced, Taiwan was a conspicuous leader in the global response to Covid. A very good university friend of mine and his family live in Taiwan and I know at first hand about the immediate response, with the use of technology, proper test and trace, and community action. The noble Lord was very frank, and I commend him for being honest with the Grand Committee, that it was an error that we did not communicate very strongly and share those experiences. I hope the Minister will be able to say that we learned from that experience and that we will not see this repeated.
With my international trade spokesman hat on, I have tried on a number of occasions to have Trade Ministers develop much stronger relations with Taiwan, particularly in the context of what we saw with the Taiwanese delegation to COP in Glasgow, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said. I commend him on his work as an envoy. We saw the very strong and great opportunities for renewable technology in particular, as two island nations with immense opportunities for tidal and wave power.
As vice-chair of the Scotch Whisky All-Party Parliamentary Group, I sometimes find it difficult to come to terms with scotch leaving our shores, but the Taiwanese are an appreciative and very valuable market— the third-highest for value in the world. As an export, it is also enormously important for UK soft power and our culture, standards and tourism.
As has been referenced in this debate, this is an enormously tense time, and the UK needs to be clear in its public statements, with no ambiguity, that we will stand shoulder to shoulder with those who stand for the values that we stand for in Europe. As my noble friend Lady Northover said, the world and the UK can both benefit from greater co-operation with Taiwan. In many respects, it is itself a brilliant star for democracy in the region, and we should say very loudly that we support it.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for initiating this debate and for her excellent introduction.
Taiwan has become a democratic success story—a beacon for others to follow—but, today of all days, we must recognise that that journey was painful and, at times, slow. In considering how we can best support Taiwan in its development of democracy, I ask the Minister what recognition the UK has given to the role of civil society, a key ingredient for the protection of human rights. In visiting Taiwan, I have personal experience of meeting LGBT groups campaigning for same-sex marriage there—this was a successful campaign that would not, in my opinion, have been successful without the engagement of civil society.
With the CPTPP, the region is a focal point for negotiation and important to the UK’s prosperity. An enhanced trade partnership between the UK and Taiwan would be strong evidence of the UK’s commitment to a values-based trade policy. The current tensions across the Taiwan Strait require all liberal democracies to increase their support for Taiwan. China’s recent military flights towards Taiwan and its attempts to push for Taiwan’s international isolation should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Of course, the Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, has argued for a peaceful and constructive dialogue between people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain today what the UK has been doing to facilitate and encourage such dialogue.
As we have heard in this debate, although our current focus is on Ukraine, we should not forget that the pandemic, climate change and food insecurity are global issues that the international community must address collaboratively. As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said, the experience and voice of Taiwan’s 24 million people should not be ignored. Although the UK and Taiwan have no formal diplomatic relationships, the ties between us reflect the values that we share. In a week where Taiwan has joined the international effort to sanction Russia, it is clear that there are further areas of co-operation for us to explore.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I join others in expressing gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for securing this important debate on this date. I also recognise the important contribution that she has made in her role as vice-chair of the APPG. I of course thank other noble Lords for their very insightful and detailed contributions.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, we are meeting during a moment in history, where there is a real challenge to the international world order. The organisations that have kept peace, including the United Nations, are under the severest of challenges, not least from Russia, a P5 member. Very shortly in your Lordships’ House, we will again debate the specific issue of sanctions and their impact on Russia.
I share the concern expressed by a number of noble Lords—including the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who speaks with great insight on these issues—that when there is one aggressor in the world, another watches with great interest what the international community does. I also recognise that, when Crimea was annexed, it was very clear that the response of the international community very quickly assumed a new sense of what was defined as normal. I very much welcome the strong contributions and support for the people of Ukraine from across your Lordships’ House and beyond. We will continue to work in a co-operative manner to ensure that that message is given not just to Russia but to any other aggressor around the world who is watching to see what the international community may do.
The noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Rogan, are right: Taiwan is an important democratic partner in the world to the United Kingdom. Its journey has been remarkable, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, since its first free and fair election just over 25 years ago. Taiwan has an independent media and an energetic civil society, as the noble Lord reminded us. We of course recognise and welcome its decision on the importance of ensuring equality for all in all elements of society. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, also reminded us of the strength of democracy and of civil society. We share common ground in many areas, including Indo-Pacific security, which my noble friend Lord Bethell referred to, and prosperity, climate action and global health. Our relations are built on an increasingly wide range of interests, be they economic, scientific or educational, which were rightly emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott.
I have listened carefully to what was said about engagement from the United Kingdom, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Bethell. Our right honourable friend Greg Hands has visited Taiwan often in his capacity as Trade Minister. Equally, noble Lords will be aware that the UK’s unofficial relationship with Taiwan is unique in our standing on the world stage and international relations. We are not represented by an embassy in Taiwan, rather by the British Office Taipei. I assure noble Lords that our team there drives forward our important relationship with Taiwan.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others mentioned engagement at a more senior level, or from Ministers at the FCDO; our position on ministerial engagement remains unchanged. However, that does not limit us to not representing the interests of Taiwan when it comes to the global stage. I will come on to that in a moment.
Before I do that, the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady D’Souza, in her opening remarks, referred to the question of the current up-front tensions and the increased tensions in the Taiwan Strait. I assure the noble Baronesses and my noble friend Lord Bethell that we are in regular contact with our close partners about the importance of stressing peace and stability in the strait. During our presidency of the G7, the Foreign and Development Ministers’ communiqué in May 2021 underscored
“the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait”,
and reiterated that Ministers
“encourage the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues.”
My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have also made clear that the numerous Chinese military flights that have taken place near Taiwan over recent weeks and months are not conducive to the regional peace and stability that we all desire.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and my noble friend Lord Bethell raised the issue of the CPTPP. As a non-member, we are not commenting on the specifics of other economies’ interests in the agreement. This is of course a group of economies that promote free and fair trade, and members are required to meet high standards. Therefore, that issue is very much for the membership, but I acknowledge that this remains an important area of interest for your Lordships.
Many noble Lords rightly mentioned the importance of trade. I recognise the invaluable role of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, as trade envoy. He has given exemplary service to our country in strengthening ties. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, that we are strengthening our relationship and I was delighted that my dear friend the right honourable Penny Mordaunt, the Minister for Trade, co-chaired the talks held in October 2021. Those talks deepened the UK and Taiwan’s economic and commercial partnerships across a range of areas and saw progression on market access ambitions in a number of sectors which many noble Lords mentioned, including energy, offshore wind power, financial services, pharmaceuticals, agriculture and of course Scotch whisky. As a teetotaller, I must bow to the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, but I am sure that the quality of whisky is excellent—I will go no further on that point. I assure noble Lords that the Department of International Trade holds annual ministerial talks with Taiwan. As I said, those of last October made real progress on market access in key sectors.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and others rightly mentioned the importance of climate. I assure noble Lords that the UK and Taiwan are partners on climate action, increasingly sharing expertise on floating offshore wind and multi-use port development. We 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. I hope the noble Baroness recognises the importance of us encouraging these efforts, of which we have seen results, with more than 30 of our offshore wind companies having set up operations in Taiwan.
Last year, the third UK-Taiwan energy dialogue promoted our expertise in decarbonisation and offshore wind. It agreed new areas for co-operation, including Taiwan’s commitment to reach net zero by 2050. The Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult, our leading innovation centre for offshore wind, wave and tidal energy, also signed an agreement with Taiwan’s top research institute to promote new partnerships. In my role as Minister with responsibility for relations with India, I have seen its capacity; it is a leading element of British technology in offshore wind.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Bethell, raised digital and tech. We are keen to build on our flourishing science and technology co-operation with Taiwan. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, rightly talked about learning from each other. Taiwan produces most of the high-performance semiconductors that drive our digital economy. It also plays a critical role in the technology supply chains that underpin global markets and invests heavily in research and innovation, including through MediaTek’s research centres in Cambridge and London.
We have also strengthened co-operation on education. Taiwan has set out plans to become a bilingual society in Mandarin and English by 2030. The issue of soft power has often come up. I am sure noble Lords will join me in recognising and welcoming that, through the important role of the British Council, the UK is a natural partner to help further advance English language education, teaching and assessment.
The noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Faulkner, and others talked of the importance of human rights; I acknowledge the important role that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has played in this respect on previous visits to Taiwan. We are bolstering co-operation between the British Office and the Taiwanese National Human Rights Commission on democratic principles and values. We will continue to focus on doing more in this respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and my noble friend Lord Bethell talked of the integrated review. We are of course very much focused on the growing influence of China in this respect. We will work with all key partners in ensuring the strength of our work and operations on the ground in Taiwan, as well as in the Indo-Pacific region.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, mentioned the death penalty. This of course remains a focus. We are consistent on this issue and continue to raise it with the Taiwanese at the highest level.
We also encourage Taiwanese engagement with the Equality and Human Rights Commission in England and Wales. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy has developed important partnerships with Taiwanese stakeholders, including those emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Collins: civil society groups, universities, political parties and think tanks. Through this work, we continue to deepen our engagement and co-operation with Taiwan in support of democracy.
The noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Bethell raised the important issue of our international support for Taiwan. I assure noble Lords that we are working hard with our 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. For example, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that in 2021, for the first time, we named Taiwan in the UK’s national speech at the World Health Assembly and made the case, alongside like-minded countries, that Taiwan’s inclusion benefits global health. That includes Taiwan’s meaningful participation in ongoing technical meetings, allowing its experts to access and participate in relevant facilities and virtual formats, as well as information exchange platforms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and my noble friend Lord Bethell talked about the importance of learning from the pandemic. We want to learn from Taiwan’s leading example in tackling Covid-19; it rightly won the world’s admiration for its assured response, based on its experience. This is a two-way process. We have facilitated expert-level dialogues between UK health experts and the Taiwan Centers for Disease Control, and will be taking forward plans this year for a UK-Taiwan expert health dialogue.
Finally, the UK’s long-standing position on Taiwan has not changed, and we have a strong and thriving relationship. Enduring peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait is a matter not just of UK interest but of global concern. We will continue to work with all international partners to discourage any activity that undermines the status quo. We will also continue to press for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organisations. As we have seen from the debate today, it is not just the UK but the world that will benefit from continued engagement with Taiwan, as a thriving democracy and important economic partner.
Peerages: Recommendations
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the resolution of the House on 31 October 1917 which required that any recommendation for a new peerage sent to the Crown be accompanied by a statement of the reasons for the recommendation, what plans they have to ensure that (1) any person nominated for a peerage has been approved as a proper person by the House of Lords Appointments Commission, or any other appropriate vetting committee, and (2) the assessment of the Commission accompanies the recommendation to the Crown for the grant of the peerage.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this short debate. It is a bit of a raffle, is it not? You put in your subject and about four out of 20 get drawn, so I am probably lucky to be drawn.
This comes out of my long-term interest in history, particularly the history of the way Britain has developed. When I first got here, some nine years ago, I was quite fascinated to be told that we were a self-governing House. I think I have discovered over the last nine years that our definition of “self-governing House” is something like that of a self-governing colony. We have no rights other than the right the governor-general wishes to accord to us, and she does not seem to want us to do very much at all.
When I was looking back in the history books, quite by accident I chanced on a debate from 1917, which quite clearly demonstrates that this House has the right to ask the Government to do something. People have said that we cannot ask the Government and can only petition or request, but we can take a decision. That is why the rather obscure reference to 1917 is at the beginning of this Question.
The second thing is that my studies of history have led me to somewhat different conclusions from many people’s about certain aspects of British history. One of them is that George V is probably the most underrated monarch of the last 200 years. He did a huge amount to bring Britain from Victorian England, which was really his father, to an England of George VI, which was his son. His almost 26 turbulent years transformed Britain. Together with probably our greatest Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, he not only probably saved Britain from revolution but put it on the path it is on today as a constitutional democracy.
We are quite unique in that we survived many buffetings without going down very extreme paths. If you look at the resolution of 1917, and one before it from 1914, you find at the base of it a general perception that the House of Lords was in need of some reform and that the Lords had got out of touch with the people. I think that is the case today.
The Earl of Selborne said in 1917 that the way in which the Lords behaved was
“doing grave damage to the prestige of the Crown”.
I do not think that recent events around honours and peerages have done any good for the Crown—let us put it that way. In the same debate, the Marquess of Lansdowne said that in passing the resolution we were going
“a long way towards allaying suspicion, which may be exaggerated, but which is certainly widespread and very deep-seated.” —[Official Report, 31/10/1917; cols. 847-60.]
There is a widespread and deep-seated perception today that there is a class of people in this country to whom the normal rules do not apply, and I am afraid that one of those people is not far from the head of this particular Administration we have. In short, we are in a situation where respect for the Government is far lower than it needs to be. Many people look at what is happening and say, “It’s okay for them; they live in a different world from us”.
What I am trying to do with this resolution is one little part of the procedure—the nominations of peerages: to ask that, when they are sent to the Crown, they be accompanied by the findings of whatever commission looks into peerages. If that commission rejects the peerage and the Prime Minister still wants to send it, he or she should be obliged to include with that the recommendation of the House of Lords commission that has been appointed to do this job. They should not just be able to sweep it under the carpet and say, “Oh well, I’ve looked at that and don’t agree—sorry”. All I am asking is that a document that would already exist, because the commission would have drawn it up, is forwarded to the Crown. I also suggest that that document be laid before each House. It is surprising to me that a parliamentary system that constantly talks of the need for openness does not even lay before its own House the qualifications that its own committee has approved for membership of it. This is not acceptable.
We need to do all that. It would also open up further areas where we need to look at reform. However, that is deliberately not part of this Question. I would be surprised if, when people start looking at the House of Lords, they do not start asking some questions about the business and other interests of some of its Members.
As many noble Lords know, I was sent to this House by David Cameron because he said that he wanted someone to speak for trade unions from the Conservative Benches. There was not a very long list of competitors for me to defeat but I have done what I said I would. Normally, if there is anything to do with the TUs, I pop up. I meet the TUC; I do not always agree with it but, during my time here, I have attempted to remind people that 30% of all trade unionists vote for the Conservative Party and they deserve to be listened to by our party—that is a jolly good thing. I say that, but of course the other thing David Cameron said was, “I want you to be a regular attender and voter in the House.” Then he stopped, and there was a gap before he said, “Preferably voting on our side.”
This House has to be relevant. Frankly, we have to open up the process, particularly on the question of what someone can contribute to the House of Lords. That question should be asked whether people are political nominations or Cross-Bench nominations. There are too many people in this House—this is not aimed at anyone; I am not naming any names—who, in a great flurry, become Lord or Lady So-and-so but you then have to ask the attendants, “Have you got a picture of them because I have never seen them?” This is not acceptable. This must be a working House, and one where most of the people are here most of the time.
When people ask me what my job is, they say, “Oh, you’ve retired.” I say, “No, no, I’m still working away.” They ask what I do, and I say that I work in the House of Lords. I do not say that I am a Member, which I obviously am—I say that I work here, because I do work here. This is where I come to and intervene and, I hope, do a small amount of good for the country.
I believe that this modest proposal to open up at the margin and shed some daylight on the system would be good for the Crown, which is not looking too good itself in the light of recent stories about nominations, and good for this House.
I close by quoting my dear grandmother—the wisest woman I ever knew—who once, when talking about somebody being given a knighthood, and getting it in properly, said, “Well, I don’t know why he did it, because you can’t eat it, can you, lad?”
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I am very happy to speak in Comrade Balfe’s debate. Now that I know his true provenance, I feel that he has hidden virtues I was unaware of.
I rise to speak wondering why there is a debate about this at all. It seems so self-evident that people who have undergone due process should have what has happened presented transparently in a proper form to the Crown, and if there is a divergence then the alternative case should be put. I cannot really see that anybody could take a position other than being in favour of all that.
I am, of course, completely new to the world of politics. The wiles and Machiavellian goings-on that I have vaguely become aware of over the years will, I am sure, fit me for that final deliberation at the pearly gates, when I wonder whether or not I am going to get in. Granted that I have, relatively speaking, a naivety on these things, I cannot understand how we are where we are. In 2004, when I was admitted to your Lordships’ House, Tony Blair’s Government had a very considerable majority in the Commons. When I came into the House of Lords there were, roughly speaking, 200 Labour Lords and 200 Conservative Lords. I rejoiced at the fact that someone from my background could come into a debating Chamber where cases had to be won, majorities had to be put together and arguments had to be presented that won the approval of those assembled. No Government, simply because it had even a whacking majority, as the Labour Party did then, could simply assume that it would carry the day all the time in the Lords.
Then, of course, we became aware that things were going on that got into the newspapers. We put together a committee, headed by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Its task was to try to introduce some order as it was sought to bring the numbers in the House of Lords roughly into equivalence with the House of Commons. The formula was simple; it was debated on the Floor of the House and it was agreed, and I thought that we had something that would sort out some of the excesses and wrongdoings of the Chamber as it was.
All these years later, when we look at the figures, we find that there is no longer a rough equivalence between Labour and the Conservatives, but that the Labour Party has, in fact, followed the advice of the Burns committee —one in for two out—that the Liberal Democrats have done the same, but that the Conservatives simply have not. It is not only that: they have grossly inflated the numbers coming in so that instead of a rough equivalence, we now see that there are 258 Peers the Conservatives might expect to count on for their support and 168 Labour Members. I cannot understand how something that was put together out of the deliberations of the House of Lords and which got approval from all sides of the House should end up with us being in a position—self-regulating as we are supposed to be—that leads to an imbalance of this kind.
I know that in our party meetings we can talk about our record in this respect but I must say to Conservative Members, and those taking part in this debate in particular: please tell us that you are as anxious as the rest of us that the things we have agreed in this way are not followed through on. In one case, someone who was rejected by the commission had that rejection overruled by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is under fire for a lot of things at the moment; he should be under the same kind of fire for the way in which this situation has come to pass.
I am new to politics. I hope to find probity and integrity but something like this puts me on the side of the tabloid press, which thinks that we are all a lot of funny people.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, one of the glories of this House is the wide range and diversity of its Members. If you wished to divide them up into categories, you would find that difficult. There are all sorts of opinions and views, and hurrah for that.
I recall, when I was on the Opposition Front Bench, going through Bills, and however late in the evening it was there would always be a number of Back-Bench Peers on all sides of the House. They had huge knowledge of the matters being discussed and were articulate in expressing their views. They made huge contributions to debates. Frankly, they made my own attempts to call the Government to account as a Front-Bench spokesman seem rather puny. I mention this because a number of those doing such sterling work would have been extremely unlikely to have passed the rigours of a vetting committee. Almost by definition, they had become such experts in their own fields that, on occasions, they might have appeared slightly odd when not discussing their own subject.
In a recent letter to the Times, Paul Dacre, that most eminent and distinguished newspaper editor said—oh, I have lost it.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
Well, I think he did. He said—the noble Lord will enjoy this:
“To anyone from the private sector, who, God forbid, has convictions, and is thinking of applying for a public appointment, I say the following: the civil service will control (and leak) everything; the process could take a year in which your life will be put on hold; and if you are possessed of an independent mind and are unassociated with the liberal-left, you will have more chance of winning the lottery than getting the job.”
I do not think for a moment that the committee suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, to give approval to anyone nominated for a peerage, would be in the least bit biased or show anything but the most even-handed and scrupulous attitude, and nor would they be likely to take a year. However, members of committees change and the new members may not always show such admirable impartiality.
Even if that was the case, it is inevitable that, as time goes by, the views of committees are reflected in those selected. This House could end up losing its independent thinkers and eccentrics, and those prepared to challenge the fashionable groupthink of the day. As things stand, there may be appointments that raise eyebrows. But rather that and retain the individuality of the Members of this House, and their willingness to call the Government to account, than the dreary sameness which would result over time from these proposals.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the invitation to wash our dirty ermine in public that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has presented to us. We had a Bill a while ago on the status of the Appointments Commission and why it should be made statutory and so on—I think it was a Private Member’s Bill. I said at that time that one difficulty is that we have no legitimacy; our legitimacy comes from the fact that the Crown nominates us, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
The Appointments Commission is neither here nor there. It is not statutory; it is there as a respectable front, but it does not matter. What matters is what the Prime Minister recommends to the Crown. That is the only basis of our legitimacy. We are almost like a colony. We have more like dominion status—a little bit further—but we are not self-governing. We may be in our internal affairs, but our appointments are entirely determined outside the House of Lords. That has to be absolutely clear.
Even if we followed the proposition that the noble Lord has assiduously found from reading the history books, it would not be acceptable, nor would it have any constitutional position. His example was of the commission making various recommendations which were completely ignored by the Prime Minister—whoever the Prime Minister, it has been ignored.
In a sense, our problem lies not within us but outside us. The problem of reforming this House is very simple. If the House was reformed, the House of Commons would lose its primacy. The day the House of Lords becomes legitimate would be the death of the primacy of the House of Commons, so the House of Commons has an immense interest in not having us reformed. It is very important for the House of Commons that we be thought of as figures of fun, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, said.
Whenever the Daily Mail writes about us, it always uses a picture from when Her Majesty comes to open Parliament, because then we are in our ermine. It says, “These are people prancing around in ermines, they do not do any work, they are called Lords, they get lots of money—millions of pounds—and isn’t it ridiculous?”. I am trying to write a book to tell people what we actually do in our daily work, so they realise that we do not just come on one day of the year.
Our difficulties are deeply structural. They are in the constitution of the United Kingdom, and there is no way that the constitution can be amended. It is in the nature of the constitution that the House of Commons derives its power from the fact that, of all the second Chambers in the world, we are the weakest. We are very good at advising, we have a lot of expertise—go and listen to the health and social care debate, where there is fantastic expertise—but we have no legitimacy.
There is not much we can do about that, so I recommend that we adjust our expectations. I would like our names to be changed from Lords to something else, but that will not happen. On a historical note, what has happened is much more than what happened under George V, who was very much praised. The substantial reform of this House has been under the rule of our present monarch. Life Peers were added, women were able to come and we have a sort of Appointments Commission. We are slightly more in touch with the public, and we have had the House of Lords reform undertaken by the Labour Party in Tony Blair’s first Administration.
Nothing more is possible—nor can I speak any more, so I will sit down.
Lord Cormack (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Desai, much as I disagree with a number of the points that he made. We do not have much time, so let me begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Balfe on obtaining this debate and the manner of his introduction. I endorse entirely what he said about George V. In doing that, I commend to your Lordships the recently published biography of George V by Jane Ridley, which is an extremely well-written, well-documented life and completely underlines the points made by my noble friend Lord Balfe.
I must declare an interest in that I am one of the joint founders and the chairman of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber. I set it up in 2000, when I was in the Commons and with 10 years in that House still in front of me, with my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who is a great constitutional expert. We were concerned about the way in which reform appeared to be going, because we believed very much in an appointed, non-elected House chosen for its varied expertise and not too party political because of the presence of Cross-Benchers making up around 25% of it. We thought that this was something worth preserving, not least because if we had an elected second Chamber there would inevitably be the constant threat of deadlock between the two Houses.
We have had a reasonably successful run over the last 20 years. Out of our deliberations came the Steel Bill, which allowed for retirements, and the Hayman Bill, which allowed for a rather more serious and sad thing: expulsions, if necessary. I am glad that it has not been needed up to now. We were also very much behind the former Lord Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, setting up the Burns committee. We endorsed its recommendations, as did your Lordships’ House—particularly on numbers. We should not be bigger than the House of Commons, which has 650 Members.
Of course, in effect we are not. Look at the voting figures for this week. Most Divisions had fewer than 400 people vote in them. If we look at those who are active in your Lordships’ House—of whom the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is notably one—we find that there are many who say nothing and just vote. Here we are in the midst of the largest international crisis since the Second World War, and the one Russian-born Peer, ennobled just a few months ago, has not sought to utter a word or make an appearance. This is not a personal attack on the integrity of the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev; rather, it is a regret that he has not used his unique position to come here and talk to his colleagues. He made a maiden speech, but he did not make it here. I am told that he made it on his yacht; I do not know whether that is true, but it was certainly not made in your Lordships’ House. It was remote.
It is important that those who are ennobled come here and play a proper part. A number of the recent appointments by Prime Minister Boris Johnson have barely made an appearance or a contribution. Of course, we have an Appointments Commission. It is not statutory, as the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber has always urged. It is okay that the Prime Minister nominates —that is fine—but the Appointments Commission’s word should be final. If it does not endorse a recommendation, that recommendation should be dropped gently and not with great publicity. We need to get to a House of no more than 650 Peers, and they should be working Peers. That does not mean they should be here every hour of every day; it means they should come at least 20% to 25% of the time, make a contribution and take a real interest in their vocation to public service.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, for tabling this Question for Short Debate, as it raises some interesting challenges and thorny dilemmas for all of us, eliciting a range of interesting contributions so far. In its own terms, I rather like the intention of making justifications for appointed peerages more transparent, with all that information published in the public realm. As a believer in sunlight being the best disinfectant, I believe that the more the public can see all the aspects of the inner workings of Parliament the better. However, I will raise several caveats about whether this would really lead to greater public trust in this House.
As someone whose appointment here was relatively recent and, to say the least, contentious and elicited widespread media comment and speculation—although I note that conspiratorial misinformation is not just a preserve of trolls on social media but alive and well in the mainstream—I have every interest in a more open system. But as an outsider before I entered this place, I always thought that the opaque way people were offered peerages inevitably fuelled suspicion. It was always far clearer to me why hereditary Peers were here than appointed Peers.
The truth is that none of us is here legitimately in terms of democracy. I appreciate that the main public concern is often the notion of cash for honours. Buying oneself into the legislature is obviously unconscionable, but even this accusation can be a lazy trope in our cynical times. For example, as we speak, plenty of people are saying that my peerage and those of several other recent non-party appointments were paid for by dirty Russian money—because, you know, Brexit was a Putin plot, et cetera. This conspiracy theory nonsense is confined not just to the crackpot fringes but given respectable support by mainstream commentators. I am equally wary of concluding that if someone happens to be wealthy or Russian and ends up in this House they are inevitably dodgy.
In general, I am suspicious when the corruption of democracy is confined narrowly to “follow the money” critiques. Is it any less distorting of the legitimacy of the legislature that many Peers here lost their seats because the electorate rejected them in elections, yet here they are, still making laws?
Will the proposed solutions help clear up this mess? I am certainly not keen on endorsing statutory appointments commissions with enhanced vetting powers. This sounds more like a dystopian bureaucratic HR department. Who would sit on such a commission: unelected Peers or civil servants? I do not see how that is more legitimate than any Prime Minister, who at least notionally is accountable to Parliament and the voters.
I note that one proposal is about establishing a new criteria for individuals to meet: a “copious merit” test—I am definitely sure that I would not pass that. Who decides what is meritorious? Is it a moral purity test? Would it be expertise? In which case, are we advocating a Chamber of philosopher kings, removing even further decision-making from the plebs?
All these proposals skirt round the main problem: that this House stands on shaky, undemocratic foundations, as we cannot be held to account, removed or sacked by the voters. Any appointments system will always be flawed or open to cronyism or patronage accusations when it is removed from the most important scrutineers—the demos. The very basis of any legitimate parliamentarian claim to wield the power of lawmaking should be the electorate, yet the House of Lords stands above it. Until that is resolved, I am afraid every other proposal might end up as PR and spin.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in the gap. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, for bringing this interesting Question before us from 1917, although I do not commend the Question itself because it seems to draw the monarch into vetoing, or not, a proposal put to her.
Unfinished business from 1917 is one thing, but we have unfinished business from 2017 and the Burns report, as the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths and Lord Cormack, pointed out. Despite being a believer in more fundamental reform of the House, I happily took part in the Burns committee to try to find a way forward without legislative change, which we all thought was unlikely. That way forward commanded wide support in the House. It was a scheme for new appointments and retirements that depended on trust between the parties and the Cross-Bench group, and an understanding that each would comply with the broad principles. They would provide the retirements to make the numbers right, except in cases where deaths had taken place, and, in the case of the Government, not put the numbers up in defiance of the principles behind the report.
I am afraid that that trust has not remained. We are in a situation whereby, unlike the previous Prime Minister, Mrs May, the present one does not recognise any need for restraint of that kind. That is changing the whole situation and making the Burns proposals non-operative.
I should add that we also had views about the role of the Appointments Commission in making people realise what was involved in becoming a Member of the House of Lords, and asking them questions as to whether they understood what would be required of them—but of course without any power of veto.
If we stay as we are, the Executive get the best of both worlds. They can put unlimited numbers of people into the House of Lords and then discount the opinions expressed by that House on the grounds that it is an appointed House. How does that serve our democracy? We need an effective second Chamber. Quite a lot of the time, our second Chamber is as effective as the limitation that I have just described allows us to be, but it will not continue to be if it becomes a Chamber in which every Government come along and put in a whole lot of new appointments, not even on the basis of the contribution that they can make to this House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, for raising this issue. Issues of probity, trust and transparency in appointments to your Lordships’ House are not new. Indeed, his Question refers to resolutions of this House from back in 1917. Even further back, these issues were being discussed in the 1890s. I looked at the debate of 1894 in the House of Commons. Sir Wilfrid Lawson MP raised the point that many in your Lordships’ House have raised today, which is basically that although these awards are given in the name of the sovereign, they act on the advice of the Government and Ministers, and those Ministers are responsible to the House and Parliament, which is responsible to the public. He said that
“these titles and honours belonged to the public … If, therefore they were not given for national purpose, they were clearly misapplied.”
That is a good starting point for the debate. He said then that
“in the future it should be made more clear why these titles and honours were bestowed”.—[Official Report, 4/5/1894, Commons, cols. 411-12.]
While I do not agree exactly with the resolution of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, he is on to something regarding more information being made available to the public.
The debate in 1917 said that honours were awarded in two parts, only one of which was mentioned in the Question today. The other was that the reasons why somebody was recommended for the honour that they were awarded should be published. If one thinks about honours, whether it is an OBE, a CBE or a knighthood, a few words about someone are always issued, but for appointments to your Lordships’ House just the name and no other information is published. It would be sensible to make available to the public the information on why people have been awarded such an honour.
The second part of the Motion in 1917 was raised again recently. Ministers—the Government—have to be satisfied that no payments to a political party or fund, directly or indirectly, had been made. Again, it is a question of trust, probity and transparency.
I would go slightly further than the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and want to pick up on comments that other noble Lords have made. I am not going to get into numbers, as my noble friend Lord Griffiths and others did, but there is a further point that we can look at. We have had debates in your Lordships’ House about HOLAC being put on a statutory footing. I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Howard, was arguing against any committee at all—he seemed to be arguing against HOLAC. I support its work but think it could be refined and be more transparent. We do not want a House of the great and the good but a House that is a little more representative.
At the heart of all this is that we do not have legitimacy because we are not elected. Therefore, probity in appointments is even more important than ever, because the only way in which to have any confidence in those who serve in this House is for people to have confidence in the appointments process. If that confidence goes, there is no role for this House in many ways. That is clear.
The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, about putting HOLAC on a statutory footing, is coming up. I am not sure whether that is necessarily the way forward. Transparency, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, suggested, is possibly a better way, but the issue relates to the integrity of the House.
If you look at the work of the House, particularly this week, it has to be said that we undertake the heavy lifting of legislation. We sit far longer than they do at the other end. Despite the provocation of the Government sabre-rattling at times because they do not like what we do, we always recognise the primacy of the other place. We look at Bills and legislation in far greater detail and have a much more forensic approach to it. However, again I come back to the fact that, because of the way in which we are appointed, the process has to be beyond question and have integrity.
Noble Lords may have heard the Tortoise Media podcast that the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, contributed to, which was published yesterday, I think. I recommend it because one of the issues that it talks about is the transparency of the vetting process, so that members of the public, those making the appointments and, indeed, the monarch can be assured that they can have confidence in that process. One of the reasons that it has become such an issue now is the concern about individual appointments that have been made and about the Prime Minister overruling HOLAC, which has never happened before.
I will put on record four suggestions that I think may be of assistance. I hope that I may have another minute, given that we have a bit of extra time. I thank the Minister. First, along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, giving the public further information about why someone has been appointed is a modest proposal. Secondly, I come back to the second point in 1917 about having no party-political donations. They should not be a qualification or reason for appointing anyone. Thirdly, I cite the point about the vetting process being open and transparent. Fourthly —this may be a little more controversial—I go back to what was said in the 1890s, so I cannot claim this as an original thought. At that time, the MP proposed that “when a man”—today we would add “or a woman”—has
“enjoyed a title or honour for two or three years he would be taken into Court and examined in order to see whether he was still worthy of it, and whether the man had ennobled the title in the same way that the title had ennobled the man.”—[Official Report, Commons, 4/5/1894; col. 412.]
What about some post-appointment assessment to look at the contribution that those who come into your Lordships’ House have made? We welcome people who are prepared to play a full role in the work that we do—I do not think that any of us, from any party, do not, regardless of party politics or of whether we are independents or Cross-Benchers. This is perhaps a bit more controversial, but can we look at post-appointment assessment?
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfe for securing this important and very interesting short debate. I was happy to yield the Floor, as they say in the US, to the noble Member from the Labour Party—I cannot precisely remember the phrase from the Senate. Her suggestions were interesting and good to hear but also challenging, because who would carry out this post-appointment scrutiny of performance? It is, of course, a deficit in this House that we are not subject, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, would say, to the ultimate assessment of performance, which is by the electorate. What would the consequence be if a committee said that a person was not doing very well or that it did not like what he or she had said? I am simply saying that those are the kinds of issue that would arise. Who would actually do this assessment?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am not suggesting for one second that it should be based on what people say; it should be on whether they are able to make a contribution to the work of the House, regardless of what side they are on, how they vote and what views they espouse. We could debate the other issues.
Lord True (Con)
All right. I will stick to the main point of the debate, although there is a serious issue about whether people have to be here day after day, every day, to make a contribution. My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising spoke interestingly on that point. There are people who do not come here often but whose voices we hear and listen to very carefully. We all know them.
This was a fascinating debate, and I agree with what was said about King George V and Jane Ridley’s biography, which is outstanding. Of course, one of the things that he recognised was that Lord Curzon could not become Prime Minister, despite his truly outstanding career of public service, because he had a place in what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, would call a less legitimate Chamber and thus could not, among other things, answer to the new Labour Party arising in the House of Commons. The reality is that there are issues of legitimacy, which I will come back to later in my remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, made an interesting speech, as he always does. He complained at one point about the number of Peers appointed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. As I always point out, his rate of appointment is far lower than that undertaken by Mr Blair in his first term in office. That gets to be forgotten. There was talk about the imbalance of the House. I must say that, sitting in the Chamber last night, with eight defeats, defeat after defeat, it did not seem a very unbalanced House. Here we are, night after night, with your Lordships hammering the Government’s proposals to deal with issues such as illegal immigration and crime, and the very things that the Home Secretary seeks to do being challenged. I do not feel that the alleged imbalance is preventing your Lordships asking the House of Commons to think again rather often.
Someone asked what my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising meant. The phrase I noted down was that the views of committees are often reflected in those selected. I thought that was a profound and true remark. If we look at the reflection of some of those appointed—I do not have time to pursue it—I think that that remark would have something in it. We need individuality in the House, and it was exemplified, I may say, by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I do not always agree with her, but she certainly makes an individual contribution, and I find it very welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, spoke about numbers, as he often does. He rightly said that what we really need to look at it is the people who played an active part in 2019 to 2021. The average number was 471. He has this idea of a ceiling of 600. Does he propose that we should appoint 130 more Peers to bring the House up to that number? If they were to attend only 20% to 25% of the time, as he suggested, that would be 130 times four: another 600 Peers to get that effective number here. The numbers participating—
Lord Cormack (Con)
My noble friend asked for this intervention. That was a complete distortion of what I said, and I ask my noble friend—which he is—to think of rephrasing his remarks.
Lord True (Con)
I shall read very carefully what my noble friend said in Hansard tomorrow. I believe he said that we should pay attention to the numbers actually participating, and he certainly said that he wanted more Peers who would be here for 20% to 25% the time. If he said neither of those things, I will correct my remarks, write to him and publish it to others.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I would have those removed who were not here for 20% of the time. That was entirely implicit in my remarks.
Lord True (Con)
I welcome that clarification.
The Governments of the previous and current Prime Ministers have made it clear that they did not accept the proposal from the Burns committee, which would place a limit on the size of this House. That certainly remains the Government’s position. I point out that my right honourable friend has exercised more restraint than Mr Blair in his appointments.
The House has a key role in scrutinising the Executive and as a revising Chamber, and one of the highest callings one can receive is to sit in this House—we all agree on that, whatever our differences.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will continue. My noble friend Lord Balfe was right to ask how Governments ensure that nominations are properly vetted. As noble Lords will be aware, the Prime Minister, as the sovereign’s principal adviser, has responsibility for recommending to the sovereign those to be appointed to life peerages. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, made a strong and valid constitutional point about a defect in one of the proposals in my noble friend’s Question: one must not put the sovereign in the difficult position of having to make those kinds of decisions.
The Prime Minister asks the House of Lords Appointments Commission to vet life peerage nominations for propriety, including party-political nominees and ministerial appointees. The check on propriety will include checking with relevant government departments and agencies, and other organisations. The Appointments Commission also conducts media and online searches. In my judgment, the House of Lords Appointments Commission carries out its role effectively as it is currently constituted. It will continue to advise on appointments in the same way that it does now.
Although the commission’s role is advisory, the Prime Minister continues to place great weight on its careful and considered advice before making any recommendations to the sovereign. However, as in many areas, elected Ministers may from time to time take a different view to official advice on balancing the competing issues. With regard to my noble friend Lord Balfe’s suggestion that the commission’s advice should accompany any recommendation to the sovereign and be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, as I have said, the Prime Minister places great weight on the commission’s views but it is ultimately for the Prime Minister to recommend, not the commission. I submit that it is reasonable that personal data and free and frank comment relating to an individual who is nominated should be confidential, which would not be the case if documents were laid before Parliament.
In the case of my noble friend Lord Cruddas, who is constantly cited in his absence, as the Prime Minister set out in his letter to the commission, he gave very careful consideration to the points it raised but also weighed these against other factors. This was a clear and rare exception to Prime Ministers considering such opinions from the commission. The Government were fully transparent in taking that different stance by publishing the Prime Minister’s letter to the noble Lord, Lord Bew.
As the commission noted in a letter to PACAC:
“The Commission provides advice but does not have a veto. Ultimately, appointments are a matter for the Prime Minister.”
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, then said:
“We do, however, welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to publish his recent letter, and his indication that he considers this to be an exceptional case.”
Indeed, to ensure the kind of transparency that your Lordships seek, the commission will write to the PACAC chair should a case ever arise again, as on this occasion, where a recommendation is made against the commission’s advice.
So far as the 1917 resolution is concerned, I think time has elapsed a little since 1917. It is true that the House of Lords, as someone put it at the outset, was perhaps a little out of touch at that time—I see on the annunciator that there is another defeat for the Government in the Chamber and rest the case I made in my opening remarks.
On the idea of money and donations, I submit that it is wrong to criticise individuals being ennobled just because they have also chosen to support or donate to a political party. Donations should be transparent, but that is not an excuse to knock people out for broader philanthropic services, enterprise or public service. Volunteering and supporting a political party are part of our civic democracy.
The constitutional position in the country is that the Prime Minister is responsible for advising Her Majesty on appointments to the House of Lords, and receives vetting advice on the propriety of appointments through HOLAC. The Government do not see the case for changing this. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, the Prime Minister is ultimately responsible to Parliament, and the people, for any nominations he makes to this House.
Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jay of Ewelme
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland on recent political developments in Northern Ireland.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, our minds and that of the Foreign Secretary are, inevitably and rightly, focused on Ukraine at present, but we also need to debate other issues that matter greatly, including Northern Ireland and the protocol, which have their own rhythm and timetable—not least, of course, their electoral timetable—so I am delighted that we are debating the protocol this afternoon.
It is an honour to chair the sub-committee on the protocol in your Lordships’ House. It is not all that long ago that the noble Lord, Lord Caine, as a member of that sub-committee, was interrogating the noble Lord, Lord Frost, as the Minister with responsibility for the protocol. I am delighted that they are both taking part in this debate, and I look forward to discovering shortly whether their change of roles has led to a change of views.
I should also be grateful if the Minister could say to the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, James Cleverly, that the sub-committee, and I as its chair, look forward to his involvement with it over the next few weeks and months. The sub-committee on the protocol has in its membership Members of your Lordships’ House who have long-standing experience of and involvement in Northern Ireland and are actively engaged in its politics. I am glad that a number of the sub-committee’s members are taking part in today’s debate.
The sub-committee has tried not to reach a view on the merits of the protocol, on which there are different views, but to consider what the effects of the protocol are so far and what they might be, were it to be implemented in full. Nevertheless, the effect of the protocol on the political scene in Northern Ireland is plain for all to see, hence today’s debate.
The sub-committee on the protocol has six core tasks. The first is document-based scrutiny of EU legislation applying to Northern Ireland under the protocol, and over the past year we have written nearly 100 detailed letters to government departments on nearly 50 EU legislative documents applying to Northern Ireland. The second is scrutiny of the implications of domestic UK legislation and policy for Northern Ireland; we wrote to the Minister concerned at about the time of Second Reading and have recently written on the implications for Northern Ireland of the Subsidy Control Bill, the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Elections Bill. The third is scrutiny of the UK-EU bodies relevant to the protocol, including the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee, which met most recently on 21 February. The fourth is reviewing the impact of the protocol on UK-Irish relations, which has included meetings with the committees of the Oireachtas. The fifth is interparliamentary dialogue, including with the Northern Ireland Assembly; I stress here how much the sub-committee has appreciated and valued our interactions with the Assembly and with the Northern Ireland Executive. Finally, the sixth is monitoring the protocol’s political and socioeconomic impact on Northern Ireland, to which today’s debate is particularly relevant.
The sub-committee agreed an introductory report on the protocol last July, and we have since scrutinised individual aspects of the protocol against the backdrop of the continuing talks between the Government and the European Commission. We have written to Ministers on, among other things, medicines, the rights of individuals and the potential role of the European Court of Justice. We are now completing a report on the importance, in relation to Northern Ireland, of proper parliamentary scrutiny of European legislation. All members of the sub-committee are concerned at the application of European legislation to Northern Ireland without Northern Ireland or Great Britain having the chance to comment effectively before legislation is agreed.
In the course of this work, we have spoken to, among others, commercial interests in Northern Ireland, experts from the pharmaceutical sector in Great Britain, shipping interests, the Equality Commission for the Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and academic experts from a wide spectrum of political views. In a recent seminar, we also spoke to stakeholders from Northern Ireland and Dublin. One inescapable conclusion I have drawn from these contacts is that the protocol is already having an effect. The coming into effect of some aspects of the protocol, particularly on agricultural and veterinary products, has of course been put back but, in other fields, legislation is being passed by the European Union that is having or will have a marked impact on different sectors of life in Northern Ireland.
It is clear, too, that the protocol is affecting economic activity. For example, trade flows between Northern Ireland and Ireland are increasing. To some, this is a sign of the advantages of the protocol and a welcome consequence of Northern Ireland remaining in the United Kingdom’s single market at the same time as remaining a member of the European Union’s single market. To others, it is a matter of serious concern, adversely affecting businesses in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, for whom the extra bureaucratic burden of the protocol is just too great and leading to a diversion of trade that may justify the invocation of Article 16. Views differ, but the impact of the protocol is clear.
So it is not surprising that the protocol will be an important issue in the Northern Ireland elections on 5 May. Personally, I am glad to note from the communiqué of the Joint Committee’s last meeting that discussions between the British Government and the European Commission will continue, at least at a technical level, in the meantime. However, for an agreement to be reached, whether now or in future, clearly there will need to be—I deliberately put this neutrally—movement on both sides. My question for the Minister is simple: does he think that an agreement is achievable? If so, what is his best guess as to timing? I look forward to the debate.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken as a Back-Bencher since I stepped down from the Government in December. I am glad to have the opportunity to do so now and offer my support for the approach that the Government and my noble friend Lord Caine have been taking.
As the Motion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, sets out—and as the work of his sub-committee has made clear, as he said—politics in Northern Ireland have come under ever greater strain since the start of this year. The tension created by the protocol obviously underlies the current difficulties, which stem ultimately from the destruction of the protocol’s moral basis caused by the EU’s attempt to put a vaccine regulatory border on the island of Ireland in January last year.
As has been said, the political situation is now very troubling. We do not have a First Minister or Deputy First Minister in post, and the Executive are effectively inoperative. The courts are looking at fundamental aspects of the protocol. It is by no means clear that a stable Executive can be established after the elections. In short, it is clear that there is political and societal disruption.
This situation plainly cannot be allowed to continue. There needs to be significant change. The protocol could have worked properly only with very delicate handling. It has not had it, so change must come. When it does, it must be in the direction of re-establishing full UK sovereignty and legal normality in Northern Ireland. That has to be the end goal. Reversion to this norm is the best way to provide long-run stability and properly protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Much the best way forward, of course, would be to renegotiate the protocol, as the Government have proposed, so that it can be supported across all communities in Northern Ireland and so that it respects all three strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I hope that the EU might yet do that in the new spirit of collaboration that currently exists over our common response to Russian aggression in Ukraine. However, if it does not do so, it will be perfectly reasonable for the Government to use the Article 16 safeguard provisions.
Finally, we must also remember that the protocol is explicitly a temporary arrangement. It disappears in 2024 unless the Assembly wishes it to continue. That consent vote is important. It is entirely legitimate for the UK Government to have a view on it, and I personally think that view should be that it is not in the interests of Northern Ireland for this protocol, in this form, to continue beyond that vote. I will certainly support the Government in any action they take to re-establish stability and to secure Northern Ireland’s place in this United Kingdom.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I first thank and praise the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for securing this debate. I declare an interest as a member of the protocol sub-committee. Our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has adequately addressed the main purpose, remit and terms of reference of our sub-committee: the scrutiny of EU legislation and the interrogation of the business and political interests that bear down on the protocol.
For me, the protocol and the political stability of the institutions in Northern Ireland are intertwined. Unfortunately, as a result of Brexit—of which the protocol is either the son or the daughter—we have had much political instability in Northern Ireland. Political negotiations will be the key. There is a need for political negotiations between the British and Irish Governments and the EU. There should be a separate negotiating process between the two Governments, who are the co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement, to find some solutions. The Minister said to me in the previous debate on the Northern Ireland Bill that it was the Government’s intention to hold negotiations in the post-election scenario. I said to him then that it was my fear that we may not have institutions at that juncture on 6 May. It is vital for both Governments to get on with it.
I was opposed to Brexit. The protocol was negotiated by the UK Government and the EU, and I have to say that for a former Minister to decry that protocol, when he was directly involved in the negotiations, is a bit much. All that negativity impacted on our political discourse. As somebody who was directly involved in the politics of Northern Ireland and has talked to the public on the doorstep, I can say that they are just sick, sore and tired of it. They want to see a restoration of their political institutions and politicians dealing with health, education and the economy. They want politicians to work together to provide that vision: the framework that will lead to a healthy economy in this post-pandemic phase. They want people to help heal all our ills. They want to build a shared society and see the reconciliation that is reflected in the three-stranded approach of the Good Friday agreement. I hope that can come to pass. Please stop using an international agreement as a bogey person.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I am a member of the sub-committee. We requested some assistance, through opinion polls, as to the current state of play—with all the limitations that we know about opinion polls. The February 2022 survey of Queen’s University, Belfast disclosed that 50% agree to the proposition that the protocol is on balance a good thing for Northern Ireland. The LucidTalk NI tracker poll carried out in January found that 36% thought the protocol was wrong and should be scrapped, 44% support the protocol but believe it should be reformed or adjusted, and 18% support and have no problems with it. The general picture is that the protocol is supported by perhaps two-thirds of the population, although a large section of those think it should be at least revised.
The problem is that the UK Government agreed to a solution for Northern Ireland which has two fundamental flaws. First, they agreed that the European Union could make laws directly affecting Northern Ireland but without a voice for its people. The second flaw is that they gave to the European Court of Justice, on which there is no longer even a UK representative, jurisdiction to pass judgment in infringement proceedings, or JRs, in certain areas which affect Northern Irish businesses and people, under paragraph 4 of Article 12.
The simplistic approach to these problems is to call for the scrapping of the protocol altogether but Article 16 permits unilateral safeguarding measures only if the protocol leads to
“serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist”
or to “diversion of trade”. However, any action taken must be temporary—
“restricted with regard to their scope and duration”—
and limited to involving only the issues explicitly identified. Article 16 is not intended to allow either party to suspend provisions of the protocol permanently or in their entirety. I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, suggested that it could be used this afternoon.
Unless we break the terms of the treaty, we have to swallow our pride, acknowledge our mistakes and seek solutions with our EU counterparts. We have to address the democratic deficit and seek a voice in the making of EU legislation, and while allowing the European Court its fiercely protected right to be the sole arbiter of European law, that must be indirect: we should negotiate to use the arbitration mechanisms provided for in Articles 167 to 181 of the withdrawal agreement. The essential thing is that the protocol must be made to work.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jay, on securing this short debate on an issue which, it appears, will continue to dominate Northern Irish politics for some time to come, at least until 5 May. I supported Brexit and maintain that leaving the European Union will serve the best interests of the United Kingdom in the years ahead. However, as a committed unionist, what I most certainly did not vote for was a dilution of our national sovereignty, with Northern Ireland cut off from the rest of the United Kingdom by a sea border signed off by Her Majesty’s Government. We are now forced to live under a different set of rules and regulations than Great Britain and we have no say over them at all.
Speaking in August 2020, Boris Johnson said:
“'There will be no border down the Irish Sea—over my dead body'”.
But he signed up for one in any case and, the last time I checked, the Prime Minister was very much alive and kicking. The question is: what do we do about the protocol? The answer is to engage—to engage, not to walk away.
The DUP’s decision to pull its First Minister out of the Northern Ireland Executive was a sign of political desperation as the Assembly elections edge ever closer. It was also incredibly selfish, foolhardy and damaging to local people’s lives in Northern Ireland. The fact that the DUP chose to collapse the Executive without knowing for certain whether my colleague Robin Swann, the Health Minister, had the power to make legally binding decisions over the future of Covid regulations tells you everything you need to know about that party’s priorities. It also left him with no long-term health budget to help Northern Ireland’s grotesque waiting lists, which are by far the longest in the United Kingdom.
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who is in his place—as he says, as a humble Back-Bencher. Following his departure from the Government, I note that his replacement as the United Kingdom’s negotiator, Liz Truss, and her EU counterpart, Maroš Šefčovič, have reported a constructive atmosphere in the talks to resolve the problems the protocol created. Earlier this week my party leader, Doug Beattie, led an Ulster Unionist delegation including my noble friend Lord Empey, Jim Nicholson, a former MEP, and Lauren Kerr to meet Mr Šefčovič in Brussels. Future meetings are planned.
The key to re-establishing momentum in the Northern Ireland political process is more engagement, not grandstanding with walkouts. Most of the problems relating to the protocol are political and will be resolved only with political solutions. I wish Liz Truss well in her endeavours to reach a positive outcome for the betterment of everyone in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for arranging this, and the Government Whips for ensuring that we had time for this very important debate, alongside all that is happening in Ukraine, which is disastrous and devastating for all of us in this Room.
I endorse what my chairman and the other members of the sub-committee have said today—this is how we really feel about the Northern Ireland protocol. What is worrying is that it is not really working alongside the Good Friday agreement in the way that I feel it positively should be. Of course, we know that one of the problems with the Good Friday agreement—this is a lesson to us all—is that no timelines were written into it. That is no one’s fault; these things happen from time to time. Because of Brexit, which has been a difficult decision for Britain, Northern Ireland is just pushed off to the side, I feel—it is part of the United Kingdom, which is not just Britain.
Putting that to one side, the health service in Northern Ireland has long waiting lists and children have to go to Ireland to have operations, as do people who need heart treatment. Some education is also now being taken over by Ireland.
We ought to have change now—I gave the Minister notice of what I will say, but I know that he may not be able to give me a clear answer. We have to have a dedicated Minister who does not have a number of other portfolios; otherwise, we will not get negotiations going properly. This also has to come with a dedicated senior team that works both in Northern Ireland and here. This team should be in the FCDO or the Cabinet Office—my preference would be the latter, because I see that as the machinery of government—and the Minister should report directly to the Cabinet as and when it is necessary. That would ensure that these discussions continue, as they must, regardless of what is going on—especially after the elections, when we will, I hope, have institutions working alongside the new Parliament in Stormont. It is absolutely vital that the talking does not stop, because when we are not talking to each other, all sorts of things happen; it is really important. I refer to my great friend Jonathan Powell, who said this in his books and throughout the very difficult days in Northern Ireland.
That is why I say that the only way forward, besides our sub-committee, which is the only one that is doing full scrutiny now, is to have a dedicated Minister with a dedicated senior team that has an understanding of the issues, as well as perhaps someone from the Irish Government and the European Commission or Parliament. That is the way forward. They should report very regularly—not monthly but perhaps bi-weekly—to the Cabinet Office. The right funding and support should also be in place.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this is a short debate but it gives us, particularly those of us who live in Northern Ireland, the opportunity to once again warn of the increasing instability and anger in the pro-union communities there. On numerous occasions, the Government have been warned, here in this House, that the protocol was unsustainable and had to go. We said that it was incompatible with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and we warned that the institutions were threatened. The resignation of the First Minister was the inevitable consequence of what happens when unionists feel alienated.
The protocol, which was introduced with no consent from anyone in Northern Ireland, has left them feeling significantly disadvantaged, with their rights diminished and their very identity as citizens of the UK being whittled away. When I say “they”, I mean me too. Not a day passes without some new bit of bureaucracy being discovered, stopping a certain type of goods coming into Northern Ireland, or without a business in GB telling me that it cannot deliver now because it is no longer made worth while to send to Northern Ireland. We all know that the border checks are ridiculous: a huge effort of resources and time is put in to check what will be a tiny amount of goods going on to the Republic.
The fundamental and deeply worrying fact is that our union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is being eroded. The Government’s own lawyers in the Belfast High Court said that the protocol impliedly and partially repeals the Act of Union, in so far as that fundamental law ensures unfettered internal UK trade. Of course, the Irish Government love the fact that more people are being forced to buy from the Republic, and diversion of trade patterns is happening. The Irish Government have no qualms about speaking up on behalf of the nationalist communities. As the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, said in this House on 13 September, the EU fundamentally seems to see Northern Ireland through nationalist eyes.
Northern Ireland people, who withstood over 30 years of bombs, shootings and appalling atrocities carried out by the IRA, and who have remained the most staunch supporters of our great country, now see their own Government give in, time after time, to those who wish to destroy Northern Ireland. When Sinn Féin brought down the devolved Government for three years in 2017, I did not see much abuse of Sinn Féin by our Government. They did not even hint at their disapproval of such vandalism, even when the Irish Government made it clear that the Sinn Féin demand of an Irish language Act be met before it would go back in—and now we are going to see that, although other parts of the agreement have not been met.
Just how long does the Minister think these negotiations are going to continue? They are clearly not going to get the EU to change its mind. Just how long are we going to have to put up with this?
Does he really think that the vote on the consent principle in 2024 that one other noble Lord referred to is fair? It is the only part of the Belfast agreement that is going to change the principle of consent to majority will, instead of the principle of co-operation and agreement across community consent.
I warn again that there are now demonstrations every week. There will rallies and campaigns in the lead-up to the election. Northern Ireland is in a fragile position and this Government have to recognise that time is running out, and it is running out now.
Lord Godson (Con)
I join the tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for securing this debate and for his broader chairmanship of the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, on which I am privileged to serve. I also join the tributes to the efforts of my noble friend Lord Frost in respect of recouping some of the ground lost during his period in office.
I wish to pick up on some of the matters referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, in respect of the impact and tension between the protocol and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reflect on the conflict between those two and the impact on the ground. To what degree has he witnessed a change in the Commission’s understanding of the problem with the protocol from one centred on operational issues, as experienced by businesses, to one centred on political issues that relate to the compatibility of the protocol as presently designed with the Belfast agreement? The compatibility of the protocol as presently designed with the agreement puts at risk the very aim of the protocol, which is to uphold the agreement in all its parts.
As has been mentioned by many noble Lords and Baronesses, there are three strands to the agreement. We have known for some time that strand 3, which deals with the totality of relationships between these two islands, including between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, was at risk, as was highlighted in the UK Government’s position paper as long ago as August 2017. The risk to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the consequent problems for Northern Ireland consumers in general—for unionists in particular—is to be found in the failings of that strand. However, in consequence of that and the instability caused, we have a failure of strand 1—the devolved internal government of Northern Ireland—and, as a result of the protocol, further difficulties therefore with strand 2 on north-south, cross-border issues. All these of course have to be based on cross-community consent.
All three strands of the Belfast agreement are now in jeopardy because of a protocol supposedly designed to uphold the agreement in all its parts. Even the European Commission in its September 2017 principles—its response to the UK Government’s then position paper—stated as first principle:
“The Good Friday Agreement established interlocking political institutions which reflect the totality of the relationships on the islands of Great Britain and Ireland. The institutions, which provide frameworks for cooperation between both parts of the island and between Ireland and Great Britain, will need to continue to operate effectively.”
This protocol has clearly failed the test set by the UK Government. It has not won the necessary cross-community support in Northern Ireland and it has now failed the test set by the European Commission itself.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, debates on the Northern Ireland protocol tend to generate more heat than light. Let us hope that today’s debate will buck that trend; my noble friend, Lord Jay, certainly set us off that way. At the end of this debate, it would be very useful to have a clear picture from the Government of the facts on the ground, the trends of the Northern Ireland economy since the protocol entered into force a little over a year ago, and how those trends compare with the rest of the island of Ireland and the rest of the UK.
However, a few salient political points stand out. First, the supporters of leaving the EU in the 2016 referendum grossly misled the public, particularly when the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Theresa Villiers, assured all and sundry that leaving the EU would have no adverse or destabilising effect in Northern Ireland. Secondly, the vote in 2016 provided no democratic legitimacy for leaving in Northern Ireland since there was a clear majority for remaining. Thirdly, the solution finally enshrined in the protocol negotiated by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, whom I welcome to the Back Benches, was described by the former Prime Minister, Theresa May, as one that no British Prime Minister could accept. Fourthly, there was never at any point and at any time any basis for the assertion by the current Prime Minister that the protocol would require no checks and controls on trade in goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. No wonder there is so much confusion, disinformation and distrust.
Does that mean that the problems that have arisen over the implementation of the protocol are all the fault of one side ? Certainly not. Nor does it mean that the protocol is without blemish and could not be improved—of course it could. The European Commission has recognised that by coming to the table with detailed proposals for improvements. The sooner after the May elections those negotiations can be concluded the better.
What surely must be avoided is inflicting more damage on the structures of the Good Friday agreement by dragging out the process. That agreement was a massive and painful achievement. It needs to be preserved, not used as a pawn in the political manoeuvring over the protocol.
I have one final point. The fate of the Good Friday agreement is a matter of deep concern to our closest ally, the United States, and its current President. The sooner the problems over implementing the protocol can be sorted out, the sooner what has become a serious irritant in UK-US relations can be put behind us. The converse is also true: if the UK-EU negotiations drag on or, worse still, break down in acrimony, there should be no doubt about the negative consequences for our relationship with the United States.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I too join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Jay, on securing this important and timely debate, and in commending him for the way he chairs our sub-committee, of which I have the honour of being a member. I also endorse what he said about the sub-committee looking forward to hearing from James Cleverly or a government Minister, because it is important to our scrutiny work that we have access to Ministers. We will be publishing a report soon on the scrutiny side of our work, which is extremely important, given that no other body in the United Kingdom is giving attention to laws made for Northern Ireland by Europe.
This has been an interesting debate. Predictable views have been expressed, but one thing that has changed since the last time we debated these matters is that the political situation in Northern Ireland has deteriorated. I fear it will deteriorate further unless we finally grapple with the protocol and get a solution to it. The dragging out of time to get that solution is not helpful. Indeed, the Command Paper of July last year said that the conditions for triggering Article 16 had already been met. We were told in early September that there might be a short three-week negotiation. The decision would then be made as to whether the EU was serious and the UK Government would take unilateral action. Unfortunately, not taking any action has resulted in the deterioration I spoke about on the ground in Northern Ireland.
The fact is that the protocol is incompatible with the Belfast agreement because it does not respect strand 3 or strand 1 of it. It has resulted in the resignation of the First Minister. I do not want to engage in intra-unionist petty politicking—there will be another time and place for that—but I remind my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, that the Ulster Unionists walked out of the Executive in 2015, refused to come into it in 2016 and only recently joined it. Everybody has engaged in a little bit of politicking, but we need to be serious about these matters. There are more fundamental issues at stake.
The protocol is incompatible with Northern Ireland’s constitutional position, for the reasons elucidated in the court case that is ongoing and has yet to reach a conclusion. It is incompatible with democracy. It is unconscionable that in the modern world, in the 21st century, laws are being made over far vast swathes of the economy of Northern Ireland by a foreign body in its interest, without any say or vote by any elected representative of Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom anywhere, either at Stormont or here. We can go into the trade and economic issues, which are all extremely pertinent. Remember that the protocol is being implemented in only a light-touch way at the moment. If it were not for the grace periods, which some in this House ridiculed and condemned at the time, we would face a far worse situation. This is fundamentally an issue of democracy, respect for Northern Ireland’s constitutional position and identity, and respect for the Belfast agreement, as amended by the St Andrews agreement. We need to get back to those fundamental principles.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for securing this timely and extremely important debate. I must confess that my thoughts this week—like most people in this Room, I imagine—have been with the people of Ukraine and the bravery of my many Ukrainian friends in Kyiv and beyond. It rather puts things into context.
I appreciate that the Minister is from the Northern Ireland Office and is almost certainly not in a position to answer my question, but it strikes me as nearly impossible for the Foreign Secretary and James Cleverly, the Minister for Europe, who is also dealing with Ukraine, to give the ongoing negotiations with the EU on the protocol the attention that they clearly deserve. Further to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, does the Minister believe that there is currently sufficient resource—in particular, political resource—available for those negotiations in the Government?
Continuing to threaten to trigger Article 16 in the current context does not strike me as particularly grown-up or sensible politics. Can the Minister confirm that, at least for the time being, triggering Article 16 is off the table? In the absence of the Executive, how are the political parties in Northern Ireland being involved in and consulted on the progress of negotiations? Does he agree that, in this pre-election period, it is particularly important that all parties are properly and fully involved in that process?
My noble friend Lord Thomas referred to the recent survey by Queen’s University, which reveals that attitudes to the protocol remain deeply divided, but there are at least distinct indications of a move towards acceptance of it—accompanied, however, by a desire to see it work more effectively in practice. It is fair to say that the protocol is very far from perfect, but does the Minister agree that it is currently the only solution on the table, which is why it is essential to continue to negotiate with partners in Brussels to find ways to make it work?
Northern Ireland currently faces so many challenges—the healthcare system, delivering integrated education and fulfilling its economic potential to name but three. These require a functioning and effective Executive. It is, frankly, tragic that, once again, the people of Northern Ireland find themselves without an Executive at this critical time. Clearly, these are challenging times at all levels, but can the Minister assure us that brokering solutions and finding a way to see a return to a functioning Executive remains a priority at the very highest level of government?
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for initiating the debate and the invaluable work his committee does. This deserves a longer debate and more Members taking part. The lack of resolution of this issue has the most profound implications for the future of Northern Ireland. The elections in May will undoubtedly be dominated by it, and the great tragedy is that it could have been avoided.
It seems to me that there are three major factors. The first is that the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union. The second is that there is a profound difference of view among the people of Northern Ireland over the protocol. The third is that the protocol itself came down not from Moses but from the Government. The protocol was negotiated by this Government, nobody else—no other party, none of the Opposition. Together, the Government of the United Kingdom and the European Union negotiated the protocol that we are debating.
That is the problem, of course. Had the institutions in Northern Ireland been up and running, even to the extent of the paralysed version we have today, the parties in Northern Ireland would undoubtedly have been involved the deep and difficult discussions about how to deal with this matter. They were not; as a consequence, we are where we are. The best—or the least offensive—word I can use is that, over the past few years, diplomacy and negotiations have been unhappy. They have not actually resolved anything. Things are a little better now—they are not as bad as they were—but the negotiations have not gone to the heart of this.
If anybody can suggest for one second that it is too difficult to negotiate, how on earth did those of us who were involved in the Good Friday agreement negotiate it a quarter of a century ago? Look at what happened there. The most difficult issues ever, and yet unionists and nationalists got together and negotiated the Good Friday agreement. It has been mentioned a lot in this debate. Yes, it is important—I chaired strands 1 and 3 of those negotiations and talks all those years ago; I understand what they mean—but the basis is that there must be a consensus. I agree with what many unionists and many nationalists are saying: you have to come to a consensus. You cannot have an agreement on something as significant as this unless both sides agree and get together.
My one message to the Minister is this: talk, talk, talk. Involve the Irish Government more with the British Government; they are co-guarantors of the agreement. Talk to the European Union. Above all, talk to the political parties in Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, before responding to the debate, as I am the first Northern Ireland Office Minister to be at the Dispatch Box in either House since the tragic death of Christopher Stalford, I formally place on record the Government’s sincerest condolences to Laura, the rest of Christopher’s family and his DUP colleagues.
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, for tabling this Motion. As he reminded the Committee, before my appointment last November, I had the privilege of serving under his chairmanship as a member of the Northern Ireland protocol sub-committee of the European Affairs Committee. Like colleagues from all parts of the Committee, I benefited immensely from his wise counsel and was hugely impressed by his ability to reach consensus when faced with a range of divergent views—all, of course, in the best traditions of the Diplomatic Service. I take on board the noble Lord’s comments about my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe; I will take them back. Of course, I commend the ongoing work of the sub-committee and wish it well.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising issues that remain of immense importance to Northern Ireland in particular but also, as we should never forget, to the rest of the United Kingdom as a whole. The Motion in his name asks
“Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland on recent political developments in Northern Ireland.”
I will answer that in two parts, if I may: first, by looking at the situation in Northern Ireland today, including reaffirming the Government’s strong commitment to political stability; and, secondly, making a few more general comments about the problems created by the protocol and the Government’s efforts to resolve them.
I turn first to the current situation in Northern Ireland and political stability. One of the Government’s overriding objectives is, of course, the preservation and implementation of the 1998 agreement, along with its successors, and the enormous benefits that have flowed from it. Our commitment, and my personal commitment, to the 1998 agreement, the constitutional principles it enshrines, including the principle of consent, the institutions it establishes and the rights it safeguards for the whole community, remain unshakeable. It is my firm view and that of the Government that it remains the bedrock of all the progress we have seen in Northern Ireland over the last nearly 24 years.
In that context, I warmly welcome back to his place in the House the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, who, as he reminded the Committee, was intimately involved in those negotiations in 1998. I thank him for many of his wise words today.
This Government will never take any risks with the agreement and the relative peace, prosperity and stability it has helped to create. If I might speak personally for a moment, as one who worked in the Northern Ireland Office under Peter Brooke and Patrick Mayhew during a period of direct rule in the early 1990s, while the Troubles were still raging, I need absolutely no convincing of just how important political stability is. It is therefore profoundly regrettable and disappointing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, made clear, that for the second time in recent years we now find ourselves without a properly functioning Executive in Northern Ireland following the resignation of the First Minister on 3 February and the consequential removal from office of the Deputy First Minister.
The Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act agreed by Parliament last month will provide some greater resilience and continuity of decision-making, including potentially after the 5 May Assembly election. But, as a number of noble Lords made clear, it is simply not an adequate substitute for a fully functioning Executive working for all the people of Northern Ireland and delivering on their priorities—not least, as my noble friend Lord Rogan mentioned, when it comes to the National Health Service, which in terms of outcomes already lagged behind the rest of the United Kingdom before the pandemic and now does so even more as we emerge from it, I hope. The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, made a similar reference to the state of the NHS.
Another unfortunate consequence of the current situation is that the Northern Ireland Executive will not now be able to agree and pass a three-year budget this side of the election. That would have given departments such as health greater certainty to enable them to plan ahead and implement necessary reforms. Both in the run-up to and for a period after the Assembly election, Ministers will still be able to take decisions, but nothing that could be regarded as controversial or cross-cutting, which would require executive approval.
I take on board the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. The Government will continue to urge and call for the immediate restoration of a fully functioning Executive and work towards that end: an Executive able to take the necessary steps to reform the delivery of public services; to address structural weaknesses in the Northern Ireland economy, such as skills and productivity; and, of course, to tackle community divisions, which hold back society in Northern Ireland.
However, we are under no illusions that this will be an easy task—as I know from personal experience and as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, reminded us—either in the run-up to the Assembly election in May or in the period immediately thereafter. That is, unless we can fix the root cause of the current instability in Northern Ireland, and that is of course the other subject of today’s debate: the protocol.
The problems created by the protocol are well documented, including in the Command Paper presented to Parliament by my noble friend Lord Frost last July and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, mentioned, in the first report of the sub-committee, when I was a member, also last July. Many noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon have highlighted a number of particular issues with the protocol, which I acknowledge. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, set out many of them.
I heard for myself the many challenges that businesses in particular are encountering when I met representative organisations and individual businesses, including a haulage company, in Northern Ireland a few days ago. I anticipate visiting a major port in the near future to look at the situation on the ground. I was left in no doubt by the business community in Northern Ireland about the urgent need to deal with these problems.
In addition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn made clear, there are important constitutional and political issues involved here, as well as issues of identity. It is clear that, in addition to the impact on business, the protocol strikes at the heart of the identity of the pro-union majority in Northern Ireland, who increasingly see themselves cut off from the very United Kingdom of which, on the basis of consent and in domestic and international law, they are an integral part. I assure my unionist colleagues that I never wish to see that position change.
In summary, the protocol has led to a diversion of trade, placed substantial additional burdens on business, disadvantaged consumers and led to societal issues, such as we witnessed in the run-up to—
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way. Would he, along with ministerial colleagues representing the British Government, work with the Irish Government, to look at the provisions in Article 14(b) of the protocol on the North/South Ministerial Council and the implementation bodies to see whether there are immediate solutions, so that we can get past this interregnum phase and ensure that the institutions are up and running again? It is not solely the Executive that is down but the North/South Ministerial Council.
Lord Caine (Con)
I of course take on board the noble Baroness’s comments. We are willing to look at any pragmatic solutions to this, although I would caution that negotiations on the protocol are between the United Kingdom Government and the European Commission. The Commission represents Ireland in those negotiations, as was made clear to me by Monsieur Barnier in 2018, when I had the privilege—that is probably the wrong word—of an hour with him.
I was saying that, in summary, diversion of trade and societal problems have disadvantaged consumers and placed burdens on business. Although I accept that opinion within Northern Ireland remains divided, as the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Murphy, made clear, a protocol that does not have the support of one part of the community is simply not sustainable and durable, as my noble friend Lord Frost has said on many occasions.
As my noble friend Lord Godson and others highlighted, the blunt truth is that a protocol that was intended to preserve and protect the 1998 agreement in all its parts has now become an instrument for undermining it. Clearly, it does not work for all communities and for business in Northern Ireland, and is having a destabilising effect on politics. That cannot be an acceptable state of affairs.
A number of noble Lords referred to how we got here. If they will forgive me, I wish to focus on the present, but I will pick up on the reference the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made to my former boss, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Theresa Villiers. I hold her in the highest regard but it was never a requirement of being a special adviser that one had to agree with one’s boss on every single issue, if I might put it like that.
It is clear that we need to remedy the problems created by the protocol, in both construction and implementation, as a matter of urgency to ensure the proper flow of goods within our United Kingdom internal market while, of course, respecting the integrity of the EU single market. We need to create the conditions in which the institutions established by the 1998 agreement can, across all three strands of that agreement, as my noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Godson made clear, be restored to their proper place and function effectively. That will of course require pragmatism and proportionality on all sides, but principally from the EU itself. For our part, and to this end, the UK Government set out in a Command Paper last year a range of constructive proposals. Of course, the EU published its four non-papers last year, which are, in the Government’s view, a step forward but fall short of what is required.
A number of noble Lords referred to the current negotiations. I am conscious of time and that I am surrounded by a number of seasoned negotiators, all of whom will, at one stage in their careers, probably have advised Ministers not to give a running commentary on current negotiations. It is not my intention to depart from that particular principle. I am sure noble Lords will understand that, although my department works closely with the FCDO, it is clearly in the lead on the negotiations. I am therefore somewhat limited in what I can say or share. Suffice it to say, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned, that intensive negotiations are continuing between my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and the European Commission at both ministerial and official level. While it is the case that some progress has been made, significant gaps remain.
I will finish shortly. The Government’s clear position is that, while the conditions for triggering the safeguards within the protocol were indeed met some time ago, our strong preference is to resolve our differences through agreement, if possible. In response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, at the outset, we very much hope that agreement can be reached. Unfortunately, I cannot really give him a timetable but, as I said earlier, we are seized of the importance of fixing this, and fixing it quickly. Failing that, the Government reserve the right to take unilateral action, for which the protocol clearly allows.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, reminded us, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, our debate today takes place against a backdrop of the greatest threat to peace and stability in Europe for decades, and our thoughts are with the people of Ukraine at this moment and we stand side by side with them. Notwithstanding the attention and commitment that that crisis is rightly taking up—I hope I can assure noble Lords on this point—the Government will continue to engage tirelessly to fix the problems around the protocol and pursue our objectives to build a Northern Ireland where, to use a phrase I have used many times before, politics works, the economy grows and society is more united.
The UK Government have the strongest possible interest in protecting peace and stability in Northern Ireland, and, through our unwavering support for the 1998 agreement and our efforts to fix the protocol, that is what we will strive to achieve.
Older Workers: Job Market Opportunities
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Altmann
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that older workers can secure new opportunities in the jobs market.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the House of Lords Library staff for their excellent help with the background statistics for this debate. I also thank the Centre for Ageing Better for its helpful briefings. I declare my interest as a board adviser to the not-for profit community interest company Bravestarts, which is already helping many older people to find ways to return to work in later life. I am also an adviser to the International Longevity Centre. I also thank all noble Lords who have attended this short debate today.
For many decades now, average life expectancy has been rising and people have had longer periods in retirement. Recognising the dangers that this would pose to future public finances and growth in a rapidly ageing population, Governments have pursued policies of increasing state pension ages, abolishing mandatory retirement ages and encouraging longer working lives. Indeed, this House is a live example of the value added by the experience, maturity and energy of older people who are still working. Older workers bring valuable talent, skill sets, patience and wisdom, which are often lost when recruitment focuses only on the young.
The ideal scenario for many, as they enter their 60s and even 70s, may be to reduce working hours from full-time to part-time, which is why the trends towards more flexible employment are most welcome. They will allow people to build extra income both now and in the future, as well as boosting their pensions and overall economic growth.
The employment rate for over-50s and over-60s, especially women, had been steadily increasing, boosting the economy. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research showed that people retiring just one year later than previously can add one percentage point to economic growth each year. However, if more older people pull out of employment altogether, this source of economic growth disappears, the economic activity will remain permanently lower and the pension savings of those who are no longer working will be unable to last as long.
This is why there is a concern that, since the pandemic started—since December 2019—the indications are that the employment rate for those aged between 50 and 64 fell from 72.7% to just 70.9%, reversing a well-established long-term trend. Indeed, I argue that the jobs statistics released recently suggest that perhaps the single biggest challenge in the labour market at the moment is how we help older people to stay in or return to work. Despite record numbers of job vacancies—1.3 million—and with labour supply currently lagging behind demand, 600,000 fewer people are in work now than two years ago, and economic inactivity has risen in the past months, largely driven by the over-50 age group, particularly women.
The largest proportion of the economically inactive are the older women who are less likely to have private pensions or have much less private pension. That indicates that the pandemic may be having more worrying knock-on impacts than perhaps have yet been factored into economic forecasts, if it has reduced the ability and perhaps desire of people over 50 to stay in work and may have increased health inequalities in the population, which were already stark, with a 20-year differential in healthy life expectancy across the country. The employment gap for older workers relative to the average in the population and the disability employment gap have both widened. Once again, those trends of concern are reversing the positive gains seen up to 2020. It will be important to see whether those trends will reverse after Covid. I certainly hope so.
I commend the Government on their October 2020 Plan for Jobs programmes offering financial incentives for employers who are considering hiring new staff. I welcome the Restart scheme and the October 2021 expansion of support packages, with the lifetime skills guarantee, the national skills fund, skills bootcamps for adults and the over-50s champions in jobcentres.
We are seeing a potential that needs to be carefully observed by the Government. In our ageing population, commitments to encouraging longer working lives are important for long-term economic growth as well as individual well-being. The coalition Government asked me to be their older workers’ business champion. The plight and needs of the over-50s in employment or wishing to return to work were made clear in my report, A New Vision for Older Workers, with recommendations based around helping employers and individuals with what I called the three Rs: retain, retrain and recruit, which are all the essential ingredients of a successful strategy for increasing jobs, labour force participation and opportunities for the over-50s in the labour market.
Indeed, as work becomes physically less demanding, having the opportunity for people to enjoy working in later life is important. I know that it is also important to my noble friend the Minister and her department. I ask her to take back to her department the need for published evaluation and evidence on the effectiveness of schemes that have commendably been introduced and specifically designed to help the over-50s back into work. What works best? Is her department working on any detailed research projects, perhaps in collaboration with a university or the excellent departmental officials, to understand the interventions that can best assist in retraining, retaining and recruiting older staff who might otherwise be at risk of leaving the workforce?
Might the Government consider incentives for employers to create specific programmes to ensure that older people are seriously considered rather than overlooked when it comes to in-work training? Many older people are willing to accept lower pay in order to participate in training programmes or programmes to help them change career but find that they are not widely available for older applicants. With a number of employers, I organised schemes for older apprenticeships, but older people often did not seem to believe that they should apply because “apprenticeship” relates, in their minds, to younger people. Might the Government consider the same kind of principle but maybe calling such schemes “career changer” incentives or “new career” programmes, to ensure that employers are encouraged to offer opportunities for training to new recruits at older ages? Individuals may be more likely to apply.
I also hope that my noble friend will consider whether companies might be required to report on what they are doing to ensure they are providing an age-friendly environment at work, one that offers the flexibility for part-time, but also includes in retraining those of all ages and career stages, fairer consideration of older applicants when recruiting and proper age audits as part of their diversity, training and recruitment strategies.
Making older workers feel valued is really important for all our futures. In the context of pensions, I have concerns about people pulling out of the labour market early. Are they just using their private pensions to bridge themselves from age 55 to 65, until their state pension starts, but have nothing left later? Will my noble friend encourage the Treasury to monitor and conduct research into what is happening when people are taking money out of their pensions? Making workers feel valued is important. Benefiting from the wisdom that comes with age and being part of a successful workforce can help with our Covid rebuilding programme.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I agree that the central issue here is what we can do to enable older people to choose to stay in work or to return to work.
Over all this discussion, we have the pandemic and what we hope is a move away from it. It has had impacts across our whole social and economic life, not least in its effect on patterns of work for older people. Since the start of the pandemic, we have seen a steep reversal of trends in employment. There had been a consistent increase in employment rates among older workers since the mid-1990s and a fall in inactivity rates, but between 2019 and 2021, the department’s figures for employment show that the rates for 50 to 64 year-olds fell by 2.8 percentage points for men and 3 percentage points for women.
The Institute for Employment Studies has calculated that if pre-Covid-19 trends had continued, there would be almost half a million more older workers in the workforce than we have today. This reversal of the earlier trend clearly comes at a cost for those involved: to individuals who cannot afford to lose either the income or social structure that work provides and to society as a whole, with reduced output of goods and services.
To the extent that this reflects older people choosing of their own wishes to enjoy more leisure, as against income, it can be welcomed but there is little evidence that this is the main or significant driver. The truth is that most of those who have given up employment did not have a choice but were forced out of the labour market through lack of work opportunities, ill-health or family responsibilities. The question, therefore, is what we and the Government can do about it.
In suggesting some policies, I base my remarks in large part on the excellent and timely report from the TUC, published on 23 February, Older Workers after the Pandemic: Creating an Inclusive Labour Market. I urge the Minister to read it, if she has not already done so. The TUC’s report makes it clear that increasing older workers’ participation in the labour market will require major changes in the workplace to ensure that older workers have the skills they need and that jobs and workplaces meet the needs of an ageing workforce. This goes alongside the need to ensure that those who are unable to continue working into their mid-60s are not penalised as a result, which will require an overhaul of working and pension-age benefits.
As pointed out by the TUC, there are class and ethnic dimensions to the challenge we face in offering older people the opportunity to keep working. People in low-paid and manually intensive jobs are at far greater risk of being forced out of the labour market early. Those working with heavy machinery and in elementary occupations such as cleaning or security are particularly vulnerable, closely followed by people in caring and other service occupations, retail and customer service. Together, these occupations account for just three in 10 jobs in the labour market, but almost six in 10 people who leave the labour market come from these sectors. Plans to tackle labour shortages by helping more older people stay in work must tackle the structural discrimination that means workers on lower pay are more likely to be pushed out.
At the same time, while black and other ethnic-minority workers are less likely to retire early than their white counterparts, those who leave the labour market early are significantly more likely to do so because of poor health and more than twice as likely to do so because of caring responsibilities. From an analysis of the Labour Force Survey, the TUC found that just 17% of black and minority-ethnic people between the ages of 50 and 65 who are economically inactive have retired compared with 40% of economically inactive white people, reflecting the wide ethnicity gap in average pension wealth.
So what can we do? First, particularly as we emerge from the pandemic phase of Covid, workplaces must be made safer for all workers through improved health and safety guidance and stronger enforcement. The Government should work with unions and employers to ensure that we address workers and skills shortages and deliver the Government’s stated ambition of a high-wage, high-productivity economy.
Secondly, we need to ensure that older workers have the skills needed to thrive in the labour market by giving them the right to a mid-life career and skills review and to access funded retraining and by providing tailored support for older workers at risk of long-term unemployment or of falling out of the labour market.
Thirdly, we should help older workers to manage disabilities and health conditions by ensuring that employers put in place reasonable adjustments for disabled workers and tackle workplace discrimination and by strengthening flexible working rights to allow older workers to manage workloads.
Finally, we have to look at reforms of the benefits system so that people of all ages who are unable to work can maintain a decent standard of living. We must pay attention in that area, which affects older workers most acutely.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Altmann, with whom I find myself sharing an office as of this week. I refer to my interests relating to land-based and tourism businesses in north Norfolk, as recorded in the register.
One of the things I am learning as a new boy in this House is that, prior to speaking, it is a good idea to see who you are up against in the debate. The answer, as a quick whip through Wikipedia led me to discover, is Peers with knowledge and experience on this subject far deeper and greater than mine. I will therefore limit my contribution to my experiences as an employer in land-based and tourism businesses, which I hope will illustrate the benefits that businesses derive from employing older workers and, of course, the benefits that older workers receive from continuing to work into their later years. Both these factors feed into greater benefits for the economy as a whole.
I was concerned that, as a young man of 56, I might not be able to speak authoritatively on older workers. However, I have learned that the Government class older workers as those aged 50 and above. Living longer and in better health, and with the removal of the statutory retirement age, we can expect to continue to see high levels of employment in this group. According to the Centre for Ageing Better’s report The State of Ageing in 2020, one in three workers was 50 or over.
This is borne out in our statistics at Holkham, where I live and work. Some 35% of the staff employed are aged 50 and over; 27% are 55 and over; 16% are 60 and over; 10%, or 27 people out of a workforce of 274 employees as of four days ago, are 65 and over; and 4%, or 11 people—I am rightly proud of this—are 70 and over. The gender split is evenly balanced across the age bands. This trend in our companies towards employing older workers has increased slightly in the last decade.
In the 55-and-over group, staff are employed across a broad variety of positions, including room stewards and guides, car park attendants, visitor services, retail, housekeeping, houseman, tractor and trailer drivers, a gamekeeper, academics and in administration and cafés. I have to admit that the vast majority are in lower-paid positions, but at the real living wage of £9.90 or the next rate, £10.50 an hour. Staff in this age group enjoy the flexible, part-time and/or seasonal nature of the positions, although I have to add that a good number are full-time. They enjoy interaction with people, and are good at it, and being able to make use of their skills and knowledge. While most report needing some form of income, often additional to their pension, they are often more motivated to provide an excellent service in what they do and, frankly, to keep themselves busy and the grey matter working.
Grouping people together from the age of 50 to 70 and over to highlight the pros and cons of employing this age group is done with the caveat that not all are the same, but we believe that the key benefits and advantages are as follows. I am pleased to report that the list of benefits is longer than that of disbenefits. Older workers are dependable, reliable, punctual and trustworthy. They are respectful and recognise that they are here to work and do a good job. They bring a wealth of broad-ranging experience, from ex-police officers to teachers, former senior directors, marketing specialists and, of course, skilled ex-manual workers. Their experience benefits less-experienced, often younger people. It provides excellent insight and ideas into improving work processes and practices. It also leads to us very quickly giving this group of staff accountability. They have the experience and confidence to be trusted to get on with it. Typically, they have excellent customer service skills. They go above and beyond in their knowledge and care. They do not have dependent children and are therefore less likely to have emergency issues, and are more willing to work weekends or bank holidays.
There are disadvantages. Conversely to the above, they might have elder care responsibilities. A lack of compulsory retirement age can lead to the requirement for a performance management process if someone is no longer performing or their health capability impacts on their ability to fulfil the position. This has not been an issue for us yet, but I suspect that it may be in the future. They are also typically less likely to be IT savvy, particular in terms of new functionality or shortcuts with systems. They are probably unlikely to be the people in the organisation who innovate or streamline, as their previous experience and technical knowledge can be somewhat outdated.
I have an observation on interviewing older job applicants. Quite often, candidates will say things like, “I’m really old, so you probably don’t want me”. That is a sad reflection of a lack of confidence or a poor experience when applying for other positions. Having had recent experience of working with DWP work coaches on the Kickstart team, my team is concerned that the DWP needs to ensure that adequate resources are in place to support the further expansion to 50-plus support. Work coaches need to work more collaboratively with local organisations.
I take slight issue with the assertion by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that most people have been forced out of work. My experience is that they have generally retired voluntarily. It may have a geographical influence inasmuch as they might have retired to sunny north Norfolk, but I can think of only one person for whom this was the first job he had had in five years. I hope that this has been a useful illustration for the debate.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for securing this important debate. The Office for National Statistics published data in November 2021 showing that, since the end of the Government’s furlough scheme during the pandemic, many over-50s have fallen out of the workforce. The figures showed that, in September 2021, 362,000 over-50s were unemployed and 3.5 million people aged between 50 and 64 were economically inactive.
As we know, one of the key challenges we face in this area is discrimination and some outdated ideas about age and work. Since the Equality Act was passed in 2010, it has been illegal to discriminate against someone based on their age; this includes age discrimination at work. To be clear, this age discrimination is not just against older workers. It also includes young adults, who often face considerable challenges due to discrimination.
Why am I talking about young workers in a debate about older workers? Since I ran Age Concern England for many years, people believe that my passion and area of knowledge is solely ageing. In fact, much of my earlier career and later voluntary work was in supporting young people. From 2006 to 2012, I had the privilege of being an equality and human rights commissioner. In truth, human rights have always been my main area of interest, rather than ageing or focusing only on a particular stage of life. My work in advocating for older people has always been focused on ensuring that people’s human rights are protected and not changed or diminished after a certain number of birthdays; that is pure discrimination.
Despite being illegal, age discrimination is still rife. One of the key reasons for this is unconscious bias against older people in work—and, in fact, in society generally. This is often reinforced by structural bias, whereby organisations continue to work within structures and policies that assume that the human life course is much the same as it was a century ago. The human life course has changed and continues to change; as we know, it depends on change. A baby born in 2022 will not live the same life as someone born in the 20th century. The idea that we go to school until we are 18, get a qualification so that we can get a job, work until we hit our 60s and then retire is totally out of date. In 2022, someone who is 50 could easily spend another 25 to 30 years in the workforce, yet people in their 50s are too often dismissed as “older” when in fact they may live and work for many more years, often with life experience and talent.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the bells are not ringing for some reason but there is a Division going on in the House. I move that the Grand Committee adjourn briefly. Officially we are meant to do so for 10 minutes, but I suggest that we resume once all noble Lords participating have indicated to me that they have voted successfully.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, too often, even people meaning to do the right thing inadvertently reinforce age discrimination. An example is the campaign by various ageing organisations in the UK and internationally to create a separate UN convention for older persons’ rights. There are two problems with that. First, it is not clear who we count as old. As we know, people age at different rates and the ageing process affects people quite differently. If we are saying that people over 50 are older, when life expectancy in the UK is currently 81 years and an increasing number of people are living to 100, that is, frankly, ridiculous. Worse, it says that when someone is older, having had a certain number of birthdays, their human rights are different and covered by a separate UN convention. Separate conventions may do good work to protect the rights of disabled people, where we can clearly define what is a disability, but with ageing it is much vaguer.
Worse, our understanding of ageing is generally built on a lack of understanding and an unconscious or, at least at times, conscious diminishing of older people’s contributions to society. We do not need a separate UN convention; we do not need to treat people differently. Instead, we need to treat a 73 year-old worker not as an older worker but as a worker, with the same human rights as everyone else. If a 73 year-old worker develops a disability, we should support this worker in the same way as we support a 53 or 33 year-old with a disability. Instead, we label older people pensioners, defining people over a certain age by their eligibility to receive state income and dismissing their potential contribution to society.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that we abolish the state pension, and I believe it was an important part of developing our welfare state in the 20th century, but in 2022, we need to understand that not only do many workers work well beyond the state pension age but it is often good for a person’s health and quality of life to do so. One of the biggest challenges we face is isolation and loneliness, something often experienced by people who have retired or are no longer economically active. This can lead to depression and is a contributing factor towards people developing dementia.
What steps can the Government take to support older workers to secure new opportunities in the jobs market? Our first step is to challenge unconscious bias and outdated ideas about ageing and work. We must do more to enforce anti-age discrimination measures in the Equality Act. This starts with education and challenging those outdated ideas. Crucially, it is also about challenging the idea that older people are to be treated differently, including by those wishing to help them. Instead, we need a strong economy that provides good jobs for all adults, whatever their age, who are willing and want to work, and makes it possible for them to do so.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate on a subject to which I first had to pay attention in the run-up to the millennium, when the organisation for which I was quite a young worker at the time, Age Concern, held a “debate of the age”, looking strategically at big questions to do with an ageing society. One of the advisers to that was the then Ros Altmann, and the driving force and inspiration behind it was the then Sally Greengross. It is a delight, 20 years on, that they are still taking the fight on this subject.
I am glad that we had the very informative briefings from the Library and the Centre for Ageing Better. I found a paper that I think crystallised the issues and speaks in many ways to what the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, said. The Age Smart Employer network in New York produced a paper that came up with a number of lessons for employers in recruiting and retaining older workers. One is that older people have skills and experiences that cannot be readily taught, such as critical thinking. They retain business knowledge, knowledge about networks and the historical memory of the organisations for which they work. It is absolutely true that they tend to have, on average, more technology gaps, but those can be filled and taught. To take Zoom and the House of Lords three years ago as an example, we have moved light years in a short space of time. You can learn that.
But this paper really goes to the heart of what the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, was saying: the best teams are different. They do not have groupthink; they have different skills, and sometimes that comes from different generations. One thing that older people have is an insight into customers, which is particularly important. I have in fact been to Holkham Hall, as a paying customer, and I can testify to the teamwork and atmosphere that the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, talked about.
Perhaps I was having a particularly bad bout of insomnia, because, during Covid-19, I came across one of the most informative programmes, “Farming Today”—skip the “Today” programme and go straight to that. Long before anybody else was talking about shortages of HGV drivers, “Farming Today” was talking about problems with getting milk from farms and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, is right: Covid has brought to the surface a whole load of things that many people have known about but that we have never approached in any kind of coherent fashion. There is a case for looking at sectors of work and the age profiles of people in them—and for not being afraid to take on and address some of the prejudices and what people might be shying away from in looking at that strategically.
This is a subject where we have broadly known for a long time what the causal factors are. Different Governments have brought to the table different initiatives, none of them very coherent or long term. There is a real problem, in that different Governments approach this issue differently: is it a matter of mitigating potential draws on the welfare benefits budget, is it about developing a future plan for work, is it about skills deficits or is it about the fact that we have never really—not for want of trying—got to the very heart of how we get apprenticeships to work, in terms not just of specific skills for specific jobs but of equipping young people for working life, which is something to which older people have quite a lot to contribute?
So I will go back to where I started, which was 20 years ago with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, trying to take an informed and strategic view of this, listening to academics and doing foresight work with government, as far as was possible, to look at the changes in technology and medical science that were going to affect the health of the population. If we were to do that in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, suggested—not as a knee-jerk reaction but really looking at what has come to the surface post Covid and at the future of work over the next 20 years, when we will not have the influxes of short-term and seasonal labour that we have had in the past—we should have a thoroughgoing look into the demographics of ageing. Apart from anything else, the big tech companies and the people behind them will have something to say on this, because they have begun to look at this area of work because they appreciate that the market of young people, which they have traditionally relied on, is perhaps now changing, and they need to look at that in a different way.
So I very much welcome the contributions in this debate, and I hope that, with the enlightened Minister that we are lucky to have in this House on this subject, we might perhaps take a step towards a new strategy for multigenerational workforces.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for bringing the debate into this forum. I hope that we can move forward together in such an important area. I also thank the staff and all the people who have sent us briefing notes on this important issue, and I particularly thank everyone who has contributed today—the wealth of experience is quite something, and we should really celebrate that and make sure that we pull together.
Perhaps I may add my own humble experience. I had the role of social policy manager for the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly, back in the day when we had such glorious bodies. I remember well the debate of the age, and I helped pull together a document. Moving on through my role in local government—I should declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA—UNICEF encouraged local authorities to move towards child-friendly cities. That was its big thing. As a consequence, cities—Leeds, in my case, but also many other communities—have moved on to declare themselves as age-friendly towns and cities. It is an interesting development. In reflecting on the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, they have moved on to intergenerational work, which is fascinating. They give all the elements and sections of communities a voice.
I should like to bring to the debate a recognition that no one department or policy area can solve the problems that we are talking about. It is depressing that we are still grappling with issues that were highlighted decades ago when the demographic impact of an ageing population became apparent. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what is working well as a result of the Plan for Jobs programme, what more is being proposed and how new proposals will be successfully implemented, especially in the light—as we have heard, particularly from my noble friend Lord Davies—of recent evidence highlighting the impact of the pandemic on older people. It was a cruel virus that particularly exposed structural weaknesses to a terrible degree for many people.
Linked with that is the rising imperative of dealing with skills shortages and employment needs across all sectors nationwide. We have learned that pre-pandemic, we were already starting to see a drop off in economic activity in the over-50s to the extent that by state pension age, half were not working. That represents a loss to the economy but, importantly for many, as we have heard, a huge loss to them of the financial and social benefits of working. There is poverty for some in old age, and the whole issue of loneliness is a pandemic in its own right.
I echo the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, on the importance to economy. Almost a third of the UK workforce is aged 50 and over, which is reflected in key workers—and how dependent were we on key workers during the pandemic? What does it mean for us as a society that 3.4 million key workers are over 50? What are the most common causes of people leaving the workforce before they are ready to do so? They are ill health, caring responsibilities and disability at an early age. We need to consider carefully all those areas— in particular the socioeconomic factors that highlight chronic inequality. Consider that there is a 20-year gap in disability-free life expectancy between the richest and poorest areas for women and an 18-year gap for men. That all points to the need for a real assessment of the support needs for people with health conditions to enable them to stay in employment. A key factor surely in the levelling-up agenda, which we have not talked about today, has to be how we address those issues. Are we joining up policy areas to achieve an integrated approach to dealing with the problems mentioned?
It is obvious that in the workplace today there is a critical need for retraining and supporting employment opportunities for older women. Skills shortages are being identified across a range of sectors as one of the major obstacles for businesses in planning the future viability of services, as well as the economy. Recognition of the transferability of skills and experience is a sensitive issue and needs to be part of a bespoke, locally based skills programme. Devolving resources and responsibility to local areas will be key to achieving success in these programmes.
We need to recognise upfront that previous back-to-work schemes have not worked, particularly for older people. The outcomes for the over-50s are much lower than for other age groups. A fresh approach is overdue and urgently required. Organisations such as the Centre for Aging Better have undertaken research, as I am sure we have all seen, and highlighted very sensible and practical ways to achieve success in 50-plus employment support programmes. We know is that target-driven approaches do not work. We need to have a real and honest debate, as we have discussed, on real and perceived discrimination against all people and, particularly in this scenario, against older people.
We have had a lot of statistics today and I do not want to repeat them. However, I want to ask about those who have fallen out of the labour market for good, and not through choice. How exactly does this fit with the Government’s stated ambition to extend working lives, increase productivity and level up the UK? I would also look at some of the evidence of the terrible experiences that the WASPI women had.
I have a lot of questions and the Minister will be very pleased to hear that I have run out of time to ask them all. In finishing, can we have confidence that the Government will produce bespoke, evidence-based schemes specifically for the 50-plus cohort? Will they also commit to funding public campaigns, which can be delivered at a local level, highlighting the importance of older workers? With those comments, I look forward to further debate on the matter as we move forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. They have saved the best debate until the end of the day. It has been one of quality and challenge, which is a good thing.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Altmann on securing this debate. She has been a tireless champion for older people, before and after entering this House, and speaks with great knowledge on the area of older workers, resulting in positive action. Her work as Pensions Minister is well known, but before taking up that post, she had already set the agenda for older workers as their first business champion. Her report A New Vision for Older Workers: Retain, Retrain, Recruit laid the groundwork for the Department of Work and Pensions’ 2017 strategy Fuller Working Lives, which we are still delivering through the 50Plus Choices team. I am delighted to respond to her question today and to provide details of the new and continuing work which the Government are undertaking on behalf of this incredibly important group.
To quote the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, I will run out of time. I am sure she will be happy at that point but, where I have not answered a question, I undertake to write to all noble Lords and place a copy in the Library.
As noble Lords have said, older workers are vital to our economy. The proportion of the population aged 50 and over is projected to increase from 42% in 2010 to nearly 50% by 2035, or 29 million people, so it is essential that the Government and employers make every effort to help and encourage this group with enthusiasm, experience and expertise to enter, stay in and return to work.
Firms with fewer older workers are missing out on the improved productivity, which all noble Lords have talked about, generated by social mixing and a transfer of knowledge between generations. When I ran my charity, I was always delighted when we had more mature members of the workforce with experience because when the younger ones were finding their feet and having those junior moments, rather than senior moments, it was great to be able to get the experienced ones to mentor them. I remember so well that some of them got into pretty deep water and the people with life experience helped them out of it. It kept them in the workforce, so I do understand that.
Dismissing older workers as being past it and allowing them to underestimate themselves is not just damaging to the individuals who are denied access to opportunities to grow, develop and earn. These attitudes are also damaging to individual businesses and to our economy—that was a very important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. We know that age diversity in the workforce is not just the right thing to do but that it can bring benefits to business, and many employers value the experience and loyalty that older workers can bring, as well as broader advantages such as fresh perspectives, knowledge-sharing and improved problem solving. I remember so many times when we had difficulties—which I am sure will resonate with some noble Lords—and someone would pipe up to explain what was done 10 years ago, which was really helpful.
I know that the pandemic caused catastrophe to some people’s employment but it has created particular challenges for the over-50s. Older workers took longer to come off furlough than their younger counterparts, and some of those who left have not returned to the labour market at all. Even before the pandemic, job-seeking presented particular challenges for older people. Evidence shows that those in this age group who lose their jobs are at greater risk of becoming long-term unemployed, and once they return to work, they are likely to earn substantially less than in their previous job. Data suggests that people aged over 50 who lose their jobs are twice as likely as other age groups to be unemployed for at least two years, which can mean that older workers are forced into early retirement that they may not want or are unable to afford. That comes to the point that my noble friend Lady Altmann made about people using their pensions to get them through that period.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that I will find that TUC report. We will read it and see what we can learn from it.
The Government’s older workers agenda, which, as I have mentioned, was influenced and informed by my noble friend Lady Altmann, had been making steady progress in addressing these issues. Pre-pandemic employment levels for older workers were at a record high of 10.7 million and the employment gap between over-50s and the 35 to 49 age group was narrower than ever before. However, the pandemic has sadly reversed this positive momentum and we have seen encouraging trends slip into reverse. The Government are watching the data carefully and are determined not to allow this setback to become a backward slide.
Labour market support and demand is there. We have huge numbers of vacancies and I am sure that, around the country, among our more mature population, there are people who could ably fill them. We must help them to believe that and apply for those jobs. That is why I am delighted that the Chancellor announced a £500 million boost for the Plan for Jobs to ensure that more people of all ages, including those aged 50 and over, get tailored Jobcentre Plus support to help them find work and build the skills they need to get into work.
As part of this, the new Way to Work programme will ensure a laser focus on securing work for every customer. It requires us to use every interaction, every employer relationship and all the work provision we have available to help people achieve their potential by finding a job, and in doing so support our country’s recovery.
I know that there was concern that we were going to use that as a sanctions bonanza. Nothing is further from the truth. All the jobcentres that I have visited have welcomed this programme as a real opportunity to provide tailored support to all ages. I can assure noble Lords that nobody is rubbing their hands together saying, “How many sanctions can I do today?” They are saying, “How many people can we get into work today?” The package will provide more intensive, tailored support for older jobseekers in the first nine months of their UC claim. This extra time will allow work coaches to spend longer with customers, developing strategies to overcome any barriers to work that they might be facing.
My noble friend Lord Leicester mentioned employer engagement, which was of course identified in my noble friend’s report in 2015. If we are to help people enter or re-enter the labour market, our relationship with employers is absolutely critical. They are the ones who create jobs and know the skills they want, and we have to be really good at matching them up and supporting people not just to get a job but to stay in it. I always found that getting someone into work was good, but keeping them there was the best.
The Government send this message out loudly and clearly to employers, including through the current business champion for ageing society and older workers—I am sure that we can come up with a better title than that; I do not know what kind of brand that gives us—Andy Briggs, CEO of the Phoenix Group. The business champion does incredible work in promoting suitable employment practices and measures to support those with disabilities or health conditions to stay in, progress in or remain close to the labour market.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Blake, both raised cross-government co-ordination. I am delighted to say that the DWP works closely with other government departments to bring together and advance the full range of projects that could promote better employment outcomes for older people. We collaborate closely on the mid-life MOT—I know that my noble friend Lady Altmann will be pleased about this—with the Money and Pensions Service, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the National Careers Service. This helps people plan ahead to prevent health, skills and pension challenges for a fulfilling later working life, with information on pensions, skills and health. We work with the Department for Education to highlight the interests of older people in relation to the Government’s lifetime skills guarantee, which provides free courses for jobs and £375 million of funding for new skills boot camps, made available through the national skills fund.
I will answer as many of the questions as I can, but I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not address them all. My noble friend Lady Altmann asked whether the Government would consider incentives for employers to create programmes. On that, I say: please do not just sit in this House if you have a good idea—let us have it. We will write to my noble friend with any other information we have on that.
My noble friend also asked whether the Government would consider ensuring that ageism in the recruitment process is not tacitly accepted, as appears to be the case now. When our work coaches work with over-50s, they sometimes take them to interviews—they do not let them go on their own sometimes—and do the sales pitch. So we are doing everything we can to make sure that age does not prevent people getting where they need to.
My noble friend asked whether the Government would consider a career-changer scheme. If noble Lords have any suggestions on that, we would love to hear them. I cannot answer all the questions on that. I know that my noble friend has encouraged me to ask the Treasury to do some research about taking money out of pensions. This is in my portfolio as the Minister responsible for research, so I will go back and talk to the team about that to see what we can do.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about the number of people who have left work: 41% of the people aged 50 to 65 who have come out of the workforce since the pandemic were using a private pension, savings or investments to fund their retirement, but they decided that retirement was now for them. Some of that is really sad.
My noble friend Lord Leicester, who is a very successful businessman, made the point that older workers are reliable and have a broad range of experience and maturity. As I have said, they also have a good influence on the younger workforce. I am in the bottom class for IT—my Private Secretary will endorse that—but I have found that more mature people are pretty good at it, to be honest. We should not make too many judgments that they are not. They can help young people.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about the mid-life MOT. It is a forward-planning exercise that is helpful to the people we are trying to help.
On the Plan for Jobs 50-plus programme, the offer, which my noble friend Lord Leicester raised, will ensure that older jobseekers receive more intensive tailored support, as I said. They will get the support from the work coach that they need in a flexible way. I know that Kickstart was raised in terms of putting more resources into it. I should be happy to have a meeting with my noble friend to learn more about that because we want to learn how it could be enhanced. We have that many programmes that we want to make sure that they have the best resource possible.
I will mention the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who is a noble friend to us all. What an outstanding career she has had in supporting older people. She has made the House richer for her membership and participation. I agree that we should treat everybody and not put them in little silos. I will now get a message saying that I have overrun. Do not worry. We have a national employer team who I meet on a monthly basis. The focus of our next meeting will be older workers. I will try and get back to noble Lords to tell you what the team is doing. There is no place for age discrimination. I just say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that apprenticeships for older people are working well. I am pleased about that.
I finish by saying that the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, absolutely summed it up. Getting people into work is better for the economy and their health, and we must make sure that people are talking about their destiny in the workforce, not what perhaps might have happened. With that, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
House of Lords
Global Warming
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sheehan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the finding by the Mauna Loa Observatory that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 419 parts per million in May 2021, what advice they have received from their Chief Scientific Adviser about the implications of global warming for the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
Her Majesty’s Government and advice from their Chief Scientific Adviser are informed by the latest scientific evidence as presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel’s report set out how, as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere rise, global temperatures are also expected to rise, with severe impacts globally. Risks to the UK are assessed in the UK’s climate change risk assessments, which are informed by the Climate Change Committee’s independent assessments.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. The figure of 419 parts per million is the highest ever recorded over the last 800,000 years and it is a direct indicator, based on hard science, of a rapidly changing climate and consequent irreversible damage to our ecosystems. The BBC reports that in January 2020 some hard science was presented to the Prime Minister in the form of a slide show at a teach-in organised by Sir Patrick Vallance and led by Professor Stephen Belcher of the Met Office. It is said to have convinced the Prime Minister to take climate change seriously and that must mean keeping fossil fuels in the ground. Was the Minister present and will he ask for a similar teach-in for all government departments?
Lord Callanan (Con)
No, I was not present, but we have regular meetings with all the advisers who inform government policy on this matter. I know the noble Baroness has a strong view about “leaving fossil fuels in the ground”, but we require gas as a transition fuel. In the context of the recent crisis in Ukraine, surely even the noble Baroness can see the logic of obtaining that transitional fuel from UK sources.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, in 2020 BEIS set up a committee to look at and collaborate on policy development to ensure that individual policies were joined up across government—surely a good move. That committee was disbanded in May 2021. May I ask the Minister two questions? What has replaced that committee as a cross-government body to oversee climate considerations in all departments? If that committee is the one chaired by the Prime Minister, when did it last meet and are we allowed to know what it discussed?
Lord Callanan (Con)
There is a Cabinet committee on climate change chaired by the Prime Minister dealing with cross-government issues. The noble Baroness will be aware individual Cabinet committee meetings are confidential, but she can be assured that there is regular collaborative cross-government working between departments on all these issues.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, the Thwaites Glacier in western Antarctica is collapsing into the sea, which could raise sea levels by as much as 10 feet if the whole ice sheet falls. In such circumstances, have the Government undertaken an assessment of the likely impact that this would have on coastal communities in the UK and on vulnerable areas around the world?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The Government’s third climate change risk assessment sets out 61 risks and opportunities facing the UK from climate change, with eight priority risk areas identified as requiring action within the next two years. Action already taken includes £5.2 billion in 2021 for flood and coastal defences.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, following the IPCC report, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, on the damage to our ecosystem, can the Minister update the House on what further work is being done to engage the public on climate change and biodiversity issues? I think he agrees with me that evidence shows that, if these issues are understood, far more people are willing to change the way they live to reduce the impact of climate change.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness; of course, we regularly undertake public information activities. The public are well aware of the risks presented by climate change and there is wide public support for action.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that these concerns make it even more imperative that we press ahead with our plans for getting more nuclear power, and that anyone opposing that has no idea of what the risks are?
Lord Callanan (Con)
On this, as with so many issues, I totally agree with the noble Lord; he should, perhaps, be on this side of the House. The noble Lord is, of course, absolutely right. We need to expand our nuclear power provisions and I am delighted that we have the support of the Official Opposition for our Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill, which is shortly to come back to the House.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, do the Government plan to take any action to ensure that factually incorrect statements made in your Lordships’ House are corrected, either at the time they are made or subsequently, given that the science behind climate change is incontrovertible?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Individual Members are responsible for their own statements and opinions. This is a debating House, in which there are strongly held opinions on all sides, but if any Member, whether in government or otherwise, gets something factually wrong, I am sure they would want to correct the record.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this week’s IPCC report suggests increasingly severe climate impacts, with warnings that heatwaves and flooding are highly likely, including in the UK. Firefighters are the primary public service responding to flooding in the UK; heatwaves can cause wildfires, which firefighters increasingly face. Yet our fire and rescue service has seen huge cuts, including one in every five firefighters since 2010. What plans do the Government have to fully support those in our emergency services who have to deal with the increasing numbers of catastrophic events?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point. Of course we want to support workers in our emergency services, who do such a tremendous job. We saw some of that during the recent flooding: they are the first line of our defence, and we should support them in every way that we can.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill. He will be aware from an intervention that I made previously that many of us are concerned that the Scottish Government might be able to use planning laws to thwart the development of new nuclear in Scotland. Is it not the case that, if this is vital for the security and diversity of energy supply for the whole United Kingdom, there must be some way in which the United Kingdom can make sure that new nuclear can extend to Scotland as well? Will he look into this further?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I would be happy to have a further look at it and I completely agree with the noble Lord. I think the Scottish Government’s policy to rule out new nuclear is crazy, and what will end up happening is that Scotland will be supplied from nuclear power in England and Wales, because there are lots of interlinking connecters. The same thing is happening in Germany. Ironically, the Germans just announced that they were abandoning their nuclear stations, but will end being supplied by the huge number just across the border in France.
Lithium Ion Batteries: Fire Safety Standards
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what fire safety standards are applied to lithium ion batteries in e-bikes, e-scooters and mobility scooters; and whether such batteries are safe to use and be charged in buildings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the product safety regulatory framework places obligations on manufacturers to ensure the safety of consumer goods, including the batteries used to power them. In short, the law requires that batteries used in such products must be inherently safe, regardless of where they are used, charged or stored. To support them, manufacturers may choose to apply standard EN 62133-2, which specifies requirements and safety tests for the safe operation of portable, sealed secondary lithium cells and batteries.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I have a different EN number, which I will not bore the House with. He will be aware of a number of fires allegedly caused by lithium ion batteries in cars, on bikes and on scooters, which have caused house fires and one on an Underground train. One manufacturer told me that
“unless we can prove that a product has caused serious accident or injuries, there is no priority from Trading Standards to do any pro-active checks”.
Is not the answer to have proactive checks, as I believe they do in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany, for about 10 years to prevent these illegal imports causing more fires, allowing the development of lithium ion batteries to continue safely?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord highlights an important point. I am devastated that our EN numbers do not match, but I would be happy to compare them afterwards if the noble Lord wishes. It is vital that we carry out checks on illegally imported products; the fire that he referred to was caused by something not in conformity with UK standards. We carry out checks on a risk-based approach where required.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that if these e-scooters are privately owned, they are illegal, so they should not be taken on to the train in the first place?
Lord Callanan (Con)
No, I do not. If they are privately owned, there is a prohibition on riding them on public highways, but there is nothing wrong with taking them on trains if permitted by the train operators.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, e-bikes and e-scooters are a great innovation, but it is the wild west out there. A lack of regulation and enforcement is giving them a bad reputation. There have been e-scooter trials and the assessments are now complete for many places, so there is no longer any excuse for government inaction. Will the Minister undertake to work with Department for Transport colleagues to commit to an early date for tighter restrictions on both imports and the way in which these vehicles are used on our roads and pavements?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not share the noble Baroness’s enthusiasm for banning e-scooters. The Department for Transport is considering options for how best to regulate them and to crack down on their illegal use, which we are all concerned about. New measures being considered will be designed to create a much clearer, fit-for-purpose and fully enforceable regime for regulators.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, as we make the transition to net zero, we are going to need to rely on batteries more and more. Some 156 out of the world’s largest 211 battery factories are in China, which owns and controls enormous swathes of the supply chain. If we are going to get security of supply in batteries, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that that is going to happen?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. The access to minerals and rare earth required to make batteries is a source of considerable interest to the Government. We are looking closely at where supplies can be obtained. He will be aware of the number of recent announcements on car batteries now being manufactured in gigafactories—or they will be—in the United Kingdom, but it is an important issue, and we need to bear it in mind.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, when introduced and managed well, e-bikes and e-scooters can be part of the solution to many of the world’s urban transport and health issues. In fact, this morning I cycled in on my Scott e-bike, which got me here ahead of a lot of the other traffic. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, the solution is simple: better regulation and better enforcement. Do Her Majesty’s Government have any plans to introduce further enforcement and regulation which will help deliver good-quality batteries and good-quality bikes and scooters on our streets?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord came in today on his e-bike. I am unable to resist the opportunity to say that perhaps he could have a word with his friends in the trade unions, to allow us all to come in on the Tube if we would like to at the moment. As I said earlier, the Department for Transport is considering options for how best to regulate e-scooters and crack down on their illegal use.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, as there is time in the schedule, can I invite the Minister to reconsider his reply to me? He accused me of calling for the banning of these vehicles, when I specifically praised their innovation. I asked for regulation, not annihilation.
Lord Callanan (Con)
If I heard the noble Baroness wrong, I apologise of course. We support responsible regulation. If that is what she supports us in doing, it is welcome news.
Lord Cormack (Con)
As one who does want annihilation, can I ask my noble friend to ensure that when these wretched machines, which go up to 40 mph, are on the roads, they are all properly registered and numbered, with their drivers fined if they are not wearing helmets?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am not surprised that the noble Lord supports annihilation. I do not agree with him. E-scooters represent great opportunities for urban mobility. Yes, we need to regulate them properly, ensure that they are used safely and of course ensure that riders are safe, but they offer a responsible commuting option for many people.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, however these things are regulated, we are building up a massive resource of batteries that one day will have to be disposed of, with the environmental risks that they bring as well. What assessment have the Government made of how in the long term we will deal with what could before too long become a problem?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The right reverend Prelate makes an important point but, of course, better than disposing of the batteries would be to recycle them. A number of technologies exist to enable batteries to be reused, recycled and repurposed. There are a number of instances of electric car batteries being reused as portable electricity storage devices in the home.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, what incentives are the Government offering to householders with solar PV panels to install batteries so that they can become more self-sufficient in their electricity generation, including charging their electric cars where that is possible?
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is an important point. We offer an attractive tariff for consumers who generate their own electricity to export to the grid but, as that tariff is lower than that for which they would have to buy the electricity themselves, there is an incentive, if possible, to store it and reuse it. As we get more EVs, we will see their increasing use as storage devices, and companies will start to offer an attractive tariff to enable electricity to be released from those at times of busy demand.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, going back to the right reverend Prelate’s question, how many facilities for recycling batteries are there in the UK, and what is being done to make sure that we have end-to-end design technologies in this country?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not have figures for the precise number of battery recycling plants in the UK. I am aware of some developments in that field, but I do not have the precise numbers. The noble Baroness makes an important point: that we need to ensure end-to-end recycling and reuse.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his earlier response to me, but he will be aware that in the last month two train companies have banned electric bikes and scooters being taken on to their trains. That has now been withdrawn, but it was done because London Fire Brigade’s press release was a bit unclear about the risk. This goes back to the lack of a firm specification for and firm enforcement of the quality of batteries so that there is no misunderstanding. It has upset a lot of people.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think that there was one incident on one Transport for London train, which was caused by an illegal product—it was not even properly regulated. In what I thought was a gross overreaction, Transport for London then banned e-scooters, but other train operators allow them. It is obviously a matter for individual companies to work out the risks, but a relatively tiny number of incidents have been caused from the more than 1 million that we estimate are currently in use.
International Women’s Day
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they plan to mark International Women’s Day on 8 March.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
This year’s International Women’s Day global theme is “Break the Bias”, which encourages everyone to call out bias, smash stereotypes, break inequality and reject discrimination. The UK Government will showcase our leadership in supporting women and girls in the UK and around the world. Our key moment will be the launch of a new programme to support adolescent girls overseas with 21st-century skills to give them the knowledge and qualifications they need for employment and enterprise. The Government will also make an announcement on focusing on improving the workplace for women.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, in welcoming the way forward that my noble friend the Minister has laid out, I ask her to consider the importance of breaking the bias in places such as Afghanistan, where up to 12 million women and girls currently face the risk of severe malnutrition, particularly lactating mothers. For example, 100% of the households headed by women simply choose not to eat to make sure their children can. Can my noble friend update the House on what we are doing through our overseas aid to ensure that humanitarian relief reaches them and not the male members of the Taliban?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The UK’s aid of £286 million for 2021-22 provides live-saving support to the most vulnerable. The UK is pressing the World Bank and its shareholders to allocate the remainder of the £1.2 billion that is in the Afghan reconstruction trust fund. This includes the release of £280 million in December, which helped to ensure that health services are accessible and available for women and girls and supported households to access food.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a good start for International Women’s Day would be for the United Kingdom to be as open as the EU to women and girls fleeing extreme violence in Ukraine?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I am sure that all of us support the point that the noble Baroness makes. I am sure that our Government are in dialogue with the EU to ensure that we fulfil all our obligations to help young girls in this terrible situation.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
Is the Minister aware—I am sure that she is—that there will be nothing on 8 March to mark International Women’s Day in your Lordships’ House, which goes against all our traditions over many years? Can she explain why the debate marking it will be held in Grand Committee nine days later on 17 March, by which time I think it will have become a little irrelevant? Can she ensure that this never happens again and that we have the debate in this Chamber? Could we also have Oral Questions relating to women on International Women’s Day, which again has been done for many years but which, because of the luck of the draw now that we have ballots, has become even more difficult? Would she be willing to work with me to work out a system whereby we can ensure that we have Questions relating to women in the Chamber on International Women’s Day?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I will try to answer the noble Baroness’s questions. On the debate being on 17 March, I am sure—and I refer to my noble friend the Leader—that it is to do with parliamentary timetabling. I know that the noble Baroness and others are disappointed and I am even more sorry that the ballot has not gone the way that the noble Baroness wanted it to. In relation to 17 March, I am going to the United Nations on 14 March to attend the Commission on the Status of Women and the noble Baroness will be pleased to know that when I get off the aeroplane at 6.30 am on Thursday I will be heading straight back to the Chamber to share what has happened with everybody. I will make sure that I have further dialogue with the noble Baroness; I cannot promise for this never to happen again but let us talk.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware from the debate in your Lordships’ House last night that there are still thousands of Yazidi women and girls who have been abducted, many of them having been raped in the process. She will know that a letter was delivered to Downing Street last September. That still awaits a reply. To mark International Women’s Day, will she ensure that the Government respond and say what they are doing to ensure that those still many missing girls will be brought to freedom and those responsible for the crimes will be brought to justice?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The situation that the noble Lord describes is truly shocking. I can confirm that the UK advocated strongly for the passage through Parliament of the Yazidi survivors’ law, which formally recognises the terrible crimes that the Daesh community has committed against humanity. We have established a general directorate for Yazidi survivors’ affairs, which is responsible for searching for survivors who are still missing and for co-ordinating with judicial and investigative bodies. I will try to find out when the noble Lord is going to get a reply to that letter and will get straight back to him.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, 50 years ago, when we founded Spare Rib and the first women’s refuge was set up in Chiswick High Street by Erin Pizzey, 1.6 women a week were killed by their partner or previous partner in England and Wales; the figure today is two a week. Can anyone imagine 104 women all on Parliament Square all being killed at the same time? This is a huge crime that goes largely unremarked on. What are the Government doing this year to support these women, to change some of the culture in the police and to take domestic violence more seriously? Let us not be looking at higher figure in 50 years’ time.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
Domestic violence is a subject that is near to everybody’s heart and we are doing all we can to support people to ensure that we do not have the situation described by the noble Baroness. I cannot answer for what the police are doing but I will go back to my noble friend Lady Williams and ask her to reply directly to the noble Baroness’s question.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, I voice my concerns, as my noble friend has done, that this House is not celebrating International Women’s Day on International Women’s Day. It seems quite extraordinary. Can the Minister address the continuing ghastly practice of female genital mutilation, which is still very widely practised around the world? Can she say what active steps are being taken by Her Majesty’s Government to deal with that? There are two points: one, it seems extraordinary that a parliamentary session should not celebrate such an important day and, two, what are we doing about FGM?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The message has been received from both noble Baronesses about celebrating on the day. As I say, I believe it is about parliamentary timetabling. I am sorry, I can tell the noble Baroness only what I understand but I will come back to her and confirm that. FGM is a detestable activity and the Government significantly strengthened the law on it in 2015. We introduced a new offence of failing to protect girls, extended the reach of extraterritorial offences and introduced life-long immunity for victims of FGM. Ministry of Justice data shows that almost 700 FGM protection orders have been issued since their introduction.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, are the Government sufficiently aware of the problems faced by women already living in this country who do not speak English—and the many who will come in as refugees in a similar position—which handicaps all of them in terms of their rights and their career opportunities? Are the Government doing anything practical to help this situation?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I am very pleased to say that we recognise that the ability to speak English is key to helping refugees integrate into life in England. It is absolutely fundamental to them being able to work and to have a productive life. That is why the Home Office is working closely with other departments to ensure that mainstream English language provision meets the needs of refugees. The Home Office provides £850 for each individual resettled in the country to help them develop their English.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the Association of British Insurers has reported that on this International Women’s Day there remain key areas where action can and should be taken to ensure gender parity in the world of work by reducing gender pay and seniority gaps, and in society by addressing gender pensions gaps and inequality. Can the Minister tell us how the Government, through their policies and legislation, intend to plug these serious gaps for women in work and in our wider society?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a really important point. I point out that the gender pay gap has fallen significantly under this Government, there are 1.9 million more women in work since 2010, and a higher percentage of women are on FTSE 350 company boards than ever before. In my role as Minister for Women I have been working with the Women’s Business Council—this issue is very important to it—and the Alison Rose review. I would be very happy to have a meeting with the noble Baroness and share more details.
Russia: Sanctions
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the likely impact of the sanctions they have introduced against Russia since the invasion of Ukraine.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the impact of our and the allied sanctions is significant. At least $250 billion has been wiped off the Russian stock market since the invasion and the rouble has reached record lows against the dollar and sterling. The central bank of Russia has taken unprecedented measures to prop up the rouble, preventing capital flight, and has raised interest rates to 20% from 9.5%. We have also restricted access to high-end technology, blunting the Russian economy for years to come. We continue to ratchet up pressure in conjunction with our allies.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, the courage of the Ukrainian people continues to inspire us all, but it also compels us to ask what more can be done. There is no doubt that the sanctions that have been introduced by this country and across the world have been far more far-reaching in their application and scope—and indeed the speed of their introduction—than the Kremlin could possibly have imagined. We have seen major changes in some Governments’ approach to defence issues, for instance; I think of Germany. Is the Minister concerned about those countries which are not stepping up to the mark? I think of the Commonwealth countries such as India, the most populous democracy in the world. What is being done to try to persuade it to join the international consensus? There is also, of course, China. What can be done to persuade it to do more behind the scenes to be an influence for good in this terrible situation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord. There has been unprecedented action to work with our allies in applying sanctions. This underlines the effectiveness of the sanctions: we are able to work together with those countries or jurisdictions, such as the EU, which also have sanctions policies. The noble Lord raises a valid point about what more can be done. We will be debating the laying of further sanctions later today. Further sanctions on Belarus have also been announced—there will be legislation in that respect.
On the specific question of the Commonwealth, I am engaging directly with key partners. We secured a great deal of support from Commonwealth partners at the UN General Assembly vote. Yesterday, we saw 141 nations of the UN General Assembly vote in favour of the Ukraine resolution. That is no small feat.
I will turn to the important issues of China and India. China abstained and did not veto the resolution twice over. India obviously has a long-established relationship with Russia. However, I assure noble Lords that we are working very closely with our Indian partners to also encourage them to reflect on the current situation. As we have seen, they are also extremely challenged by the exodus of Indian students from Ukraine. I assure the noble Lord that we are working very closely with India, and other partners, in this respect.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister used the term “ratchet up”. No doubt, he would have heard a solicitor on the radio this morning talking about the potential risk of asset flight. He said that he was advising his clients, if they had not been sanctioned, to get their money out now. What is the Minister’s response to that? I heard the Minister on the radio say that it was all part of a programme, but speed is of the absolute essence here. We need faster action and, possibly, emergency powers.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The Government have been responding, and expediting legislation. In this regard, as I have said before, I am grateful to the usual channels for accommodating these requests. Looking through my own commitments and those of the noble Lord, in the coming days, we will be speaking quite specifically on the legislation being laid.
I agree that the issue of asset flight is an important consideration. This is why we are reluctant to make announcements in advance, particularly those regarding individuals and organisations. As we know, there are individuals who are taking actions based on what has already happened. Equally, we need to ensure that every sanction imposed is legally robust and tested. This is an important part of our sanctions policy and those of international partners. There are those who may respond to our sanctions by sanctioning individuals, because their legal framework is not as strong ours. It is important that any sanction we impose—be it on an individual or an organisation—is fully tested and robust in its application.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the strongest possible sanctions are fully justified. However, we must be mindful that there are other victims of this conflict in developing countries where wheat prices have already gone up, and energy and fuel prices are going up. This will create a secondary humanitarian impact. The Government’s humanitarian support for Ukraine is extremely welcome: £140 million in ODA and $500 million of drawing rights from the multilateral development banks. However, the Government have capped our aid at 0.5%, and have cut their support for the IDA by 55% this year. Will the Minister reassure me and the House that our support for developing countries will not be affected by this additional support, which is very welcome for Ukraine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that we are working to ensure that we respond effectively to Ukraine. I know that the noble Lord has been very supportive of the package we announced in support of humanitarian assistance. Equally, we are very conscious of our obligations in other parts of the world. Your Lordships’ House has been through challenging circumstances on Afghanistan. We know about the continuing conflicts in places such as Yemen, and the issue with the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar and Bangladesh. I assure the noble Lord that we are very much focused on ensuring that our response to these issues is equally robust.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, in addition to economic sanctions, what scope is there now for more diplomatic sanctions during this terrible situation? For example, after the Salisbury event, considerable diplomatic sanctions were imposed.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I am sure that the noble and gallant Lord will appreciate that I will not go into specifics on what steps we are taking next. I assure the noble and gallant Lord, as my right honour friend the Foreign Secretary has said, that all options are very much on the table on how we can further pressure Russia to do the right thing. If it pulls back from Ukraine, talks can begin. All credit goes to the Ukrainians who are engaging in this initiative on the Belarus border. At the same time, Russia is, as I said yesterday, holding a trigger to the head of the Ukrainians and claiming that they believe diplomacy to be the route forward.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, first, I applaud my noble friend for all he is doing. Given that the aim of the Government is to stop the financing of President Putin’s war machine—and given that he has just said that nothing is off the table—can the Minister confirm that the Government have not ruled out calling for the complete cessation of all European imports of Russian oil and gas, and of all payments for Russian oil and gas under existing long-term contracts? Can the Minister also confirm that the Government have not ruled out banning Gazprombank and Sberbank from SWIFT?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend raises some quite specific points. On his final point about SWIFT and a number of banks, they have already been directly impacted by some of the steps we have taken. The noble Lord will be aware of the position of Her Majesty’s Government with our key partners on the total suspension of access to SWIFT.
He also raises a number of other points. As I said in response to a previous question, I will not at this time—not least for some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised—be explicit on what kinds of designations or steps we may take against specific institutions or individuals. But the actions of the Government are clear, and I am sure that people are watching the situation very closely.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Government have taken significant action in relation to sanctions. The Minister, personally, has been significantly helpful in relation to this. However, there is one further sanction which has not yet been considered and which I ask him and his colleagues in the Home Office to consider: using the powers that we have to remove British citizenship from Putin’s oligarchs living in the United Kingdom.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I am sure the Home Office has heard the point which the noble Lord has made quite clearly. This is evident in the steps taken recently by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in support of Ukraine, and her response to many of the points raised in your Lordships’ House. As I said, we are looking at the full picture. I stress the point that there are many Russians in the United Kingdom who are dual nationals. There are many Russians who do not have British citizenship but are residing in the UK. There are many Russians in Russia, as we saw in St Petersburg, who are totally and utterly against Mr Putin and his Government. It is important that we stand by them as well.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I ask the Minister why there are no applications to the court for freezing orders.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As I have said, and as the noble and learned Baroness will know, all the actions we are taking, including the sanctions policy, are based on a legal framework to ensure that first sanctions can be applied. Equally, there needs to be a legal recourse for those people who feel that a sanction has been applied against them which is not justified. I assure the noble and learned Baroness that the legal framework is very much incorporated into our sanctions framework.
I will make a slightly further point: she would have seen that we are now working with the International Criminal Court, specifically on crimes that are committed within Ukraine. This is a point which noble Lords, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, have raised with me. We are moving forward in that respect as well.
Business of the House
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That Standing Order 73 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with on Thursday 3 March to enable motions to approve the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022 and Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2022 to be moved, notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the instruments has been laid before the House.
Highgate Cemetery Bill [HL]
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 4.
“(i) on the burial authority’s website; or”
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 5, and do propose Amendment 5A as an amendment thereto—
“(aa) where notice of objection is given under subsection (9) and the objection is withdrawn, on the date specified under subsection (6)(b) or the day after the objection is withdrawn, whichever is later, or”
Lord Aberdare (CB)
I was glad to serve on your Lordships’ Opposed Private Bill Committee on this Bill last year, the first time that such a committee has been conducted entirely remotely, under the brilliant chairmanship of my noble and learned friend Lady Hallett. It is good to see that the Bill is now nearing the end of its passage through Parliament, and the Commons amendments make a great deal of sense, as does the Senior Deputy Speaker’s Motion, which I fully support.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 6 to 10.
“(10A) The burial authority must publish on its website or by other appropriate means, and make available on request, a policy setting out how it will exercise its powers under this section in relation to memorials.”
“(i) on the burial authority’s website; or”
“(12A) The burial authority must publish on its website or by other appropriate means, and make available on request, a policy setting out how it will exercise its powers under this section in relation to memorials.”
“(3A) The burial authority may from time to time, following consultation with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England and the London Borough of Camden, revoke the designation of any grave as a protected grave.”
Health and Care Bill
Thursday 3rd March 2022
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 View all Health and Care Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 114-III Third marshalled list for Report - (3 Mar 2022)
14:49 - Division on Amendment 80 - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 119 - Amendment 80 agreed.
Lord Kamall
“(ba) set out any steps that the integrated care board proposes to take to address the particular needs of children and young persons under the age of 25;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the joint forward plan for an integrated care board and its partners to set out any steps that the integrated care board proposes to take to address the particular needs of children or young persons under the age of 25.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the House for its continued focus on addressing the needs of babies, children and young people and thank noble Lords for bringing forward amendments on this issue again today. I am also really grateful to noble Lords who have engaged with the me and my officials, and I hope that this has resulted in amendments that your Lordships’ House feels that it can support.
I start with Amendment 36, in my name. This amendment will require an integrated care board to set out any steps that it proposes to take to address the particular needs of children and young people under the age of 25 in the forward plan. In addition, the Government have committed to produce a package of bespoke guidance, which explains how the ICB and the ICP should meet the needs of babies, children, young people and families. This guidance will contain provisions for the integrated care partnership’s integrated care strategy to consider child health and well-being outcomes and the integration of children’s services, as well as providing that the integrated care partnership should consult local children’s leadership and children, young people and families themselves, on the strategy.
NHS England has also agreed that it will issue statutory guidance, expecting that one of the ICB executive leads will act as a children’s lead, with responsibility for championing the needs of babies, children and young people. I hope that noble Lords are supportive of this government amendment and its underpinning commitment to support, improve and enhance services for babies, children and young people.
I turn to Amendments 157, 185 and 186. Safeguarding children is a priority for the Government, and we share the horror and concern provoked by the awful murders of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson. The Government are committed to addressing barriers to safe, timely and appropriate sharing of information to safeguard children, and we have heard clearly the strength of feeling across the House on the value of a consistent identifier for children. In particular, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, and other noble Lords, for pushing us on this issue.
To this end, we are committing in this legislation to publish a report, within one year of the section coming into force, that will describe the Government’s policy on information sharing in relation to children’s health and social care and the safeguarding of children and will include an explanation of the Government’s policy on a consistent identifier for children. It will also include the Government’s approach and actions to implement the policy set out in the report. The Government agree with noble Lords that action is needed. The report will reflect a cross-government position on what actions will be taken to improve safe and appropriate information sharing.
This amendment, of necessity, is limited by reference to health and social care, reflecting the scope of the Bill. However, the report to which this amendment refers will be laid by the Secretary of State for Education, who intends that it will cover improved information sharing between all safeguarding partners, including the NHS, local authorities and the police, as well as education settings. The Department for Education has already started its work, which will look at the feasibility of a common child identifier. I hope these amendments will reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to safeguarding children and improving services for babies, children and young people. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, the National Children’s Bureau, the Disabled Children’s Partnership and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health for their support with this amendment and for their constructive engagement with the Department of Health and Social Care. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for adding her name to this amendment.
I welcome the amendments that the Minister has laid relating to the needs of babies, children and young people but, despite the good progress made, this amendment seeks to go further by requiring NHS England to conduct a performance assessment of each ICB in meeting the needs of babies, children and young people in each financial year. This includes its duties concerning the improvement in quality of services and reducing inequalities and the extent of its public involvement and consultation.
There are significant challenges in meeting the health and care needs of children and young people, including their mental health needs, which are different and arguably more complex than for adults. This is particularly the case for disabled children and young people and those with special educational needs. A recent survey by the Disabled Children’s Partnership and the parent campaign group, Let Us Learn Too, found that 40% of families with disabled children have seen their savings wiped out by fighting and paying for support.
I shall give one brief example from the West Midlands. Joanne, whose autistic son also has pathological demand avoidance and communication difficulties, explained that the local authority refused to do an occupational therapy assessment, so she paid for one privately. Eventually, she took the local authority to tribunal at considerable expense in legal fees. Despite winning, it is one year on and still no support is being provided by the local authority.
One in three families with disabled children said they needed publicly unprovided essential therapies for their disabled child, but could not afford them. Some 60% of families with disabled children have sought NHS mental health support for a family member due to the stress of fighting for basic services. The Disabled Children’s Partnership cites individuals feeling a sense of societal resentment toward disabled people, says that carers are persistently undervalued and underrepresented in policy and details the enormous physical, emotional and financial burden they endure in caring for their disabled family member without adequate support from the health and care sectors. Joanne said, furthermore, that the local authority blamed her for her son’s disability and put a child protection plan in place rather than supporting her, although thankfully it was removed shortly afterwards.
Integrated care boards have a crucial role in commissioning primary and community healthcare services directly for babies, children and young people. They will play a key role in the joint commissioning of services for disabled children and those with special educational needs, as well as contributing to education, health and care plans and in the commissioning of joined-up services in the first 1,000 days of life, in which the Government are, importantly, investing. Crucially, ICBs will be jointly responsible for the leadership of local child safeguarding partnerships, together with the police and local authorities.
Yet support for children and young people varies geographically. Local systems find themselves pulled in different directions by different government initiatives and separate pots of funding, which creates a profound risk of destabilising what are relatively new local safeguarding partnerships. The Wood report, published in May 2021, reviewed the new multi-agency safeguarding arrangements put in place by the Children and Social Work Act 2017. It revealed just how stretched the resources are in protecting children, as well as the need for a more effective culture of joined-up working and a more consistent and detailed understanding of the role of the three statutory safeguarding partners—the local authority, the CCG and the chief officer of police. The Wood report also emphasised the importance of accountability regarding the quality of these services and the need for inspectorates and regulators to develop a model to analyse performance against what is deemed to be best practice, something that this amendment goes a long way to trying to achieve.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
I support and very much welcome government Amendments 36, 157 and 185 in response to the powerful debates in Committee on children’s health, safeguarding, data-sharing and particularly the case for a unique identifier for children, on which I put forward an amendment in Committee. I thank the Minister for engaging so fully and positively on these issues and for the various meetings which led to these amendments being tabled. It is also very welcome that Amendment 36 includes children in the Bill, which so many of us have argued for.
On the unique identifier as a means of identifying children in touch with multiple services, aiding safeguarding and promoting joined-up support, I strongly support the government amendment to lay a report before Parliament on information sharing and on a single unique identifier for children. That is a real step forward, and it is clear that the Government acknowledge that there are serious and distinct challenges with sharing relevant information across not just children and social care sectors but others too, including schools and the police.
There is always more to do, so I will never be 100% satisfied and I note that the amendment as tabled does not actually commit the Government to any specific timed action beyond publishing the report. Therefore, it was good to hear the further assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, gave at the Dispatch Box. I think I heard him say clearly and unequivocally that the Government are committed to developing plans not just to look at the case for but to adopt a single unique identifier for children. I think I also heard a commitment to developing a set of cross-government proposals for implementing that, and then, I hope, acting on the findings of this report within a defined timescale. If the Minister could reiterate those commitments, I would be extremely grateful. I would also welcome a commitment to involving those organisations representing children and young people, who have been so much a part of our discussions and debates, as part of the production of that Bill.
I support Amendment 59 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, which I signed, requiring NHS England to assess annually how well each ICB is doing in meeting the needs of children and young people; it provides much-needed accountability and transparency, particularly in relation to the new and crucial safeguarding responsibilities that ICBs are taking on. I welcome the statutory guidance, which I know the Government intend to produce, on having a children’s lead on the board of every ICB. That is really important.
I support the suite of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. I will leave him to set out the case for them, but I agree that family hubs play a really important role in improving early intervention services, helping integration and data sharing among public services and involving the voluntary sector. Importantly, and germane to this Bill, that includes children’s health services, which are often better delivered in community settings with other family support services. I particularly support Amendment 75, which calls for each local authority to provide a family hub. That is central to a national rollout of family hubs. which I would like to see at the very core of a national strategy on child vulnerability.
Lord Farmer (Con)
I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for her support; it is very much appreciated. She has been a doughty warrior accompanying us along this path for many years.
I will speak to my Amendments 64, 66, 68 and 75 and I thank the Minister for the meetings I have had with him and the Bill team to hear his concerns, particularly around being overprescriptive.
Amendment 64 simply replaces “may” with “must” and thereby requires integrated care partnership strategies to lay out how health-related services can be more closely integrated with health and social care. In Committee, I said that “may” made that aspect of integration voluntaristic, and I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why, as I am genuinely mystified, the ICP is at present only invited to do that.
Amendment 66 has been revised after the discussions mentioned earlier. I propose adding new subsection (5A) to Clause 116ZB to specifically invite ICPs to consider how family help services, including those accessed through family hubs, could be more closely integrated with arrangements for the provision of health services and social care services in that area. I avoid using “must” in that case, because it could place an overly prescriptive requirement on ICPs. I also avoid mandating the use of family hubs. They are simply mentioned as an important potential access point.
I recognise and applaud the many ways that the Government have improved the Bill with respect to children’s health. However, I explained in Committee that many children’s health needs are psychosocial: they need practical, not just medical, solutions and addressing them needs a whole-family approach. That is also particularly important when parents experience drug and alcohol problems, which can affect their children almost or as much as the parents themselves.
Early family help commissioned by local authorities therefore needs to be integrated with health as well as many other departments of government. Family hubs are mentioned in my amendment, not prescriptively but as the model that could enable that to happen. In Committee, I described how DWP’s Reducing Parental Conflict programme, DLUHC’s Supporting Families and the MOJ’s private family law pilots all looked to family hubs as an access point for those who need this support. The Bill could and should help to make that model proliferate to benefit families. As it operates according to principles, not an overly prescribed framework, it can be tailored to local need, including by drawing in the bespoke work of the local voluntary and community sector. Historically and currently, health services have had a poor track record in integrating with local government and wider partners. The Children’s Centre movement frequently lamented the lack of engagement with health. The opportunity the Bill provides to avoid that pattern being repeated should not be missed.
My Amendment 66 gives meaning to the phrase “family help” and points towards an amended Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 to explain what is meant by “family hubs”. In Committee, I explained that
“services which improve children’s lives through supporting the family unit and strengthening family relationships to enable children to thrive and keep families together”
is the independent care review’s working definition of “family help”. This is not a concept to be set in concrete in the lead reviewer’s final report, but simply one that is qualitatively different from “family support” in local authority usage. The latter leans towards late-stage statutory child protection, which ideally prevents children entering care and is far from the early help so many parents need.
Finally, my Amendment 75 necessarily changes how the Children Act 1989 refers to family help infrastructure to reflect more closely the way it has developed. It has also been adjusted since Committee to avoid mandating local authorities to provide family hubs, which would have significant cost implications, ultimately for the Treasury. As a result of my amendment, new Schedule 2(9) to the Children Act would state:
“Every local authority shall provide such family hubs as they consider appropriate with regard to local needs in relation to children and families within their area.”
“Family hubs” means an access point where children, their parents, relatives and carers can access advice, guidance, counselling or paediatric health services as well as occupational, social, cultural or recreational activities. This removes the anachronistic reference to and description of “family centres”. These were never consistently implemented in the way probably envisaged by the draftsmen of the 1989 Act, although children’s centres did emerge to fulfil many of their purposes in response to research on the importance of children’s early years.
To address the Minister’s concerns that putting family hubs into legislation would introduce unhelpful rigidity and prescription, I end by making an analogy with the Supporting Families programme. This does have a legislative underpinning, but the early troubled families programme from which it evolved provided principles for a tried, tested and consistent way of working, illustrated these with case studies and supported local authorities to develop their own bespoke approaches to that way of working. The DfE is taking a similar non-prescriptive approach in its family hubs framework, which emphasises principles—namely, access, connection and relationships—and avoids determining how local authorities implement these. Just as the Supporting Families programme has developed but is still recognisably the same way of working launched as “troubled families” 10 years ago, I and others anticipate the same continuous improvement trajectory for the family hubs model or way of working.
Family hubs are now official government policy, backed by a £130 million commitment, a major evaluation programme and decades of supportive research. The model is not prescriptive but enabling and supported by many local authorities and those designing health systems. I would be grateful, in conclusion, if the Minister would explain, after these assurances, why this important social infrastructure, the fruit of 30 years of reform, which builds on and extends Labour’s legacy of Sure Start centres, has no place in the Bill.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, on his efforts to keep the issue of prevention and early intervention before us: it is vital. I also thank the Minister for the government amendments and the way he has engaged with us over this issue. I was particularly pleased to hear him use the word “action” at least two or three times in his introduction to the amendments. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and my noble friend Lady Tyler, on all they have done but in particular for pointing out, in their Amendment 59, that there could be a bit of a gap here. We have the CQC, which will inspect individual healthcare settings and, under the Bill, it will also have to see how the new integrated care system is working, but there is no guarantee that it will see it as part of its duty to see how that system is working for children. This is something that the NHS could do through the report called for in Amendment 59.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend the Minister for Amendments 36 and 157. I shall also speak in support of Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. Before I do so, I hope your Lordships’ House will allow me to take this opportunity to thank the healthcare professionals at Guy’s and St Thomas’s, who recently looked after me so well following major surgery. Some noble Lords may have noticed my absence. I have had half my leg rebuilt and am now the proud, if involuntary, owner of a Meccano set inserted by my excellent surgeon, Marcus Bankes, and his registrar, Christian Smith. I apologise in advance if any noble Lord seeks to intervene and I dare not sit down to take their intervention as I am not sure I would be able to get back up again.
Although the pain was excruciating and the morphine, which I am weaning myself off, very welcome, it saddens me to say that that pain was compounded by the way in which I received no support from your Lordships’ House. I might as well have been dead. It reminded me that this wonderful institution remains a place whose rules and modus operandi were designed by and for rich, non-disabled men. I will say no more on the matter now, but it is clear to me that this needs to change if we are to become a stronger, more diverse, more representative House. If we do not want to be consigned to the past, we must stop living in the past. The appalling way we treat Members whose disability enforces temporary absence from your Lordships’ House is indefensible and cannot continue.
Returning to the substance of the amendments under discussion, I am hugely grateful that the Government have listened to concerns I raised at Second Reading and others raised, in my absence, in Committee. All credit goes to noble Lords for the strength and the passion with which they did this, and to the Minister for so obviously listening and taking their concerns on board. Taken together, Amendments 36 and 157 should make a real difference to the lives of all babies, children and young people in this country, particularly those with speech, language and communication needs. I should declare at this point my interest as a vice-president of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. I know the Minister and his colleagues across government, not just in the Department of Health and Social Care but also in the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice, share my ambition and the ambition of other noble Lords in wanting children and young people with communication needs and their families to have the best possible level of support so they can realise their potential.
To help deliver that ambition, I ask my noble friend to reflect on four things. First, I would be so grateful if he would look kindly on Amendment 59, so ably spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. This would help to close any potential accountability gap and considerably strengthen the provisions of Amendment 36.
Secondly, will the Minister pledge to ensure that all the guidance to the Bill specifically references children’s speech, language and communication needs? The statutory guidance and accountability lead for SEND is a very positive development, but it is not sufficient. The vast majority of children with communication needs do not have an education, health and care plan. This includes children with developmental language disorder—over 7% of all children—those who stammer, and those with speech-sound disorders. The guidance must, therefore, ensure that the needs of those children are supported. A model that the Government have already established for this is the statutory guidance to the Domestic Abuse Act, where speech, language and communication are listed as a specific intersectionality.
Thirdly, will the Minister agree to meet the chief executive of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists to discuss how the guidance on the Bill can best capture those issues? Fourthly, on Amendment 157, can the Minister reassure the House that the report will include commitments to act to improve information-sharing? Finally, may I reiterate my huge thanks to my noble friend the Minister, and say how pleased I am to be able to do so in person, in your Lordships’ House? It is good to be back.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend back and commend him for his bravery. We came into the House at the same time, and he is a source of constant inspiration to us all; I have endless admiration for him. I apologise to the House for having omitted to declare my interests when I spoke for the first time on Report on Tuesday. I refer to my entry in the register of interests, and in particular to the fact that I work with the board of the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. I am also a patron of the National Association of Child Contact Centres and a co-chair of the All-Party Group on Child Contact Centres and Services.
I again commend my noble friend the Minister for summing up and assessing the mood of the House and tabling the amendments today; I am grateful to him for that. I also support the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and her Amendment 59, which is very appropriate. I hope my noble friend will look favourably on it, and I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness. One of her remarks earlier on Report which struck a chord with me was about the shortage of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals, particularly for those in the age group affected by these amendments.
I endorse and support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer. He refers in particular to the family hubs, and I make a plea to the Minister to recognise, as part of a family hub, a child contact centre. Centres are usually manned by volunteers, and they do fantastic work—not necessarily in keeping families together, because, unfortunately, their role largely comes into play when families have broken, but they play a fantastic role in maintaining contact with the absent parent.
Obviously, in these constrained times, the budgets of all organisations come under increasing scrutiny and pressure, so I urge the Minister to use his good offices to speak to those in the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education to ensure that the budget for child contact centres will be renewed not only for two years but for three years—the period promised earlier. Those centres do fantastic work, under great constraint, and I am proud to be associated with them. I wanted to use this opportunity to support the amendments and to urge my noble friend the Minister to use his good offices in this regard.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome the government amendments—bur first I wish the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, all the best for a speedy recovery from his hospitalisation; I am sure everyone will join me in that. I welcome the government amendments to ensure that the Bill recognises how important sharing information on children’s health and social care across government departments and public authorities is to safeguarding and protecting them and to promoting their welfare. The commitment in Amendment 157 to reporting to Parliament within a year on implementation, and explaining where the use of the consistent identifier for each child would facilitate information-sharing, is a significant step forward, as is the emphasis on overcoming the barriers that stop services being joined up, which have a serious—and, sadly, all too often fatal—impact on keeping children safe and well.
We also support government Amendment 36 to Clause 20, which leads this group, on how ICBs’ joint forward plans will address the needs of children and young people. Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, complements this in relation to performance assessments, and says how they should address the matter, particularly the duties relating to disabled children and children with special needs. I hope the Government will respond positively to this and will consult widely with stakeholders, after the promise in the Minister’s recent letter of a package of “bespoke” statutory guidance from NHS England explaining how ICPs and ICBs will meet the needs of babies, children, young people and families, and be accountable for integrating services. The Minister’s letter, and his introduction today, provide a number of assurances on important issues, such as having children’s leads on ICB executives. We will see how it all works through in practice in the structures of the new bodies.
As noble Lords have stressed, the whole issue of sharing information across multiagencies will be difficult and challenging. Two of the major barriers for previous efforts were the clash between the value of sharing electronic information and fears about it getting into the wrong hands. That is why we need a clear status picture of where we are starting from, to be able to analyse what needs to be done, how progress can be made, assessed and monitored, and the priority areas for identification of consistent identifiers.
The Minister has promised that the report will cover all safeguarding partners including the NHS, local authorities, education and the police. Will he write to noble Lords on the categories of information currently shared between those bodies, so that we can see where we are starting from?
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has again spoken strongly on his amendments about family hubs, which we supported in Committee on the Bill and on other occasions. I look forward to the Minister's updated response. We do, however, always—today is no exception—make the very obvious point that if the Government had not shut down the excellent Sure Start centres up and down the country, many of the provisions that the noble Lord is calling for in support of children, mothers and families would all be in place now.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have raised important points in this debate; I also thank them for accepting some of the amendments that we have tabled in response to their engagement. That engagement was very constructive, and I hope that as they look to hold the Government to account we will continue to have engagement on these issues.
First, I shall deal with a couple of specific questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, again asked about the identifier. As I have made clear, the report will include an explanation of the Government’s policy on a consistent identifier for children. It will also include our approach and actions to implement the recommendations in the report.
We all agree that the principle of a consistent identifier is right, but there are complex issues in applying that consistent identifier in safeguarding children. This is why we want to investigate all the issues thoroughly in a report that will be laid before Parliament a year after commencement. There is one issue in which I am personally interested—I am sure noble Lords will remember that I geeked out on this one. I think there are some technical solutions, but I can also see some technical unintended consequences. I myself will look very closely at the report, especially at the technical solutions.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome my noble friend Lord Shinkwin; it is good to see him back. I thank him for engaging with me—almost from his hospital bed, I think, which demonstrates his commitment to these issues. He talked about speech and language therapy, and the Government recognise the importance of communications needs, and the important part that they play in children’s development. We will work with stakeholders on the development of guidance, and ensure that we engage with the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
Before my noble Lord sits down, does “children” in this amendment include children in care?
Lord Kamall
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the annual report for an integrated care board to explain, in particular, how it has discharged its duties under sections 14Z34 to 14Z44 and 14Z47A (rather than just some of those sections).
“(ba) review the extent to which the board has exercised its functions consistently with NHS England’s views set out in the latest statement published under section 13SA(1) (views about how functions relating to inequalities information should be exercised),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the annual report for an integrated care board to state how far it has exercised its functions consistently with views expressed by NHS England in the latest statement published under new section 13SA.
“(3A) An annual report must include—(a) a statement of the amount of expenditure incurred by the integrated care board during the financial year in relation to mental health,(b) a calculation of the proportion of the expenditure incurred by the integrated care board during the financial year that relates to mental health, and(c) an explanation of the statement and calculation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires an integrated care board to include in its annual report information about spending that relates to mental health.
“(ca) section 14Z40 (duty in respect of research),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a performance assessment in respect of an integrated care board to include, in particular, an assessment of how well the board has discharged its duty to promote research and the use of evidence obtained from research. Another amendment provides that the duty to promote research etc includes doing so by facilitating research.
Baroness Brinton
“(3) This section however does not authorise—(a) the disclosure of patient information, or(b) the disclosure of personal information obtained from a specified authority which is a health or social care body.(4) For the purposes of this section a “health or social care body” means a public body which exercises functions in connection with the provision of health services or of adult social care in England.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent ICBs from disclosing patient information or certain personal information.
Baroness Brinton (LD)[V]
My Lords, I thank Ministers, officials and other Peers, including my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for the discussions that we have had since Committee. I am particularly grateful for the letter from the Minister late yesterday and the meeting this morning.
I have laid Amendment 60, and I support Amendment 116, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which try to protect only the lawful disclosure of personal patient data. For the purposes of the debate on this group, can we accept that this is shorthand for the confidential personal and medical data currently mainly held by GPs and hospital doctors in England? Amendment 60 would provide that protection in legislation and was laid only because we have not yet had a clear response from Ministers on what is permitted and what the existing rules will be relation to ICBs taking over responsibilities from CCGs because ICBs are new bodies. This is in the light of new Section 14Z61. At Second Reading and in Committee, noble Lords expressed concerns that this new section, which outlines ICBs’ permitted disclosures of information, looks very wide ranging and could, for example, enable a police officer, or another person from a public body, to demand the disclosure of a patient’s personal data.
The new section uses the phrase that ICBs can disclose data where
“disclosure is necessary or expedient”
for the person making the request, but nowhere does it explain how the decision is made by the ICB or what the decision-making process is to release the data and, importantly, where the protection of that personal data sits in the hierarchy of the request of necessary and expedient demands. I have asked repeatedly how this process would work, and in responses at the Despatch Box, in meetings and in letters I have not really had a response that has laid out simply and clearly how this process would work. I shall therefore ask the Minister the following questions in an attempt to clarify how a patient’s confidential personal data will be protected and what the process would be for it to be released to a person making a request. What rules and guidance are available for staff, including those in ICBs, to manage a request from a non-NHS person requesting information other than through a court order? How would it be processed and reviewed? ICBs would not normally be the holder of such data, and new Section 14Z61 does not set out the balance between the rights of the patient and those of the requestor who believes they have a necessary or expedient reason for being sent this data.
We wish to be confident that the structures are in place for when shared care records come into force. Let me be clear: from these Benches, we welcome the principle of shared care records, but the processes need to be in place to ensure that personal data is protected when every part of NHS England would have access to that data. I raise this particularly because just this week Health Service Journal stated that the Secretary of State is speeding up the shared care records project to be complete and implemented by December 2023.
Can the Minister therefore commit that the powers in Section 14Z61(1) will be constrained such that for requests of disclosure that come from outside the health and care system, the ICB will only ever disclose the direct care providers the requester could ask instead? Can he confirm that if an ICB is to become data controller for shared care records, he will return to this clause with primary legislation on such implementation?
I am very grateful for the discussion with Ministers and officials and hope that the Minister will be able to provide your Lordships’ House with a response that demonstrates that patient, personal and confidential data remains secure. I look forward to his response, and I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on the brevity of her remarks, which is a model for Report stage. I think she put this across very well indeed and I very much support her.
My Amendment 116 relates to the containment in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 of the concept of a safe haven for patient data across health and social care, which is required for national statistics for commissioning, regulatory research purposes and patient care. My Amendment 116 simply seeks to keep those statutory protections in place and ensure that NHS England does not take on this responsibility as a result of the merging of NHS Digital and NHSX within the structure of NHS England, which was a recommendation of the review led by Laura Wade-Gery. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is going to speak in some detail—but with brevity as well, I hasten to add.
Kingsley Manning, the former distinguished chair of NHS Digital, has spelled out the implications of doing this. He believes the action of NHS England in taking over NHS Digital
“is a significant retrograde step in defending the rights of citizens with respect to the collection and use of their health data.”
In a letter to me, which I received yesterday, the Minister asked me why NHS England would be regarded as less independent, transparent or objective in the exercise of these functions, given its already significant responsibility for some data and the fact that it is a very similar organisation to NHS Digital, as a statutory arm’s-length body. In answer to him, NHS England has many different responsibilities and priorities, so, first, it will clearly not be able to give the same focus to the issue of protecting the safe haven and, secondly, it has many interests which could be deemed to at least be in tension with the concept of the safe haven. That is why I and other noble Lords believe it is important to have the statutory protection already contained in the current legislative arrangements.
I conclude by saying that I am at one with Ministers in wanting to speed up digital transformation in the NHS; after all, we have been dabbling with this over many years. But it has to be done right, and the way to do it right is to be very transparent and rigorous about the protection of patient information.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendments 60 and 116, and I congratulate my noble friend Lady Brinton and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on their persistence in pressing these two items, because they are extremely important. I also thank the Minister for his engagement, both on the Floor of the House and in extensive correspondence. This has been really quite a complicated trail. I feel as though we have been in a maze where we have had to follow a bit of string, finding the way through into data governance in the NHS.
We have had to follow certain key principles, which we all share and which the Minister has expressed, including the protection of privacy, the right of opt-out, the value of health data and, above all, the imperative to retain public trust. Given the importance of the new ICB regime, I very much hope that the Minister will be able to comprehensively answer my noble friend’s questions.
But if we have taken the time to get to this point of really understanding—or beginning to understand—the kind of data governance that the ICBs will be subject to, it raises the question of what future guidance will be in place. I very much hope that the Minister can absolutely give us the assurance that there will be new, clear guidance, along the lines I hope he is going to express in response to my noble friend, as soon as possible, especially given the speeding up of the electronic patient record programme, as my noble friend Lady Brinton said. That is, of course, desirable, but it has to be done in a safe manner.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I rise even more briefly to support Amendment 116. It is worth reminding the Minister and the House that the Government Statistical Service is independent. It was made so by the Blair Government so that Ministers could not withhold, distort or delay the publication of uncomfortable statistics. Rebukes on dodgy statistics secure public reprimands of Ministers and departments.
The logic of this position is that you do not put the collection or publication of health statistics in the hands of an operational arm’s-length body, particularly because there could be a conflict of interest. That point has already been made. These functions should be left in the hands of an independent non-operational body, which is what the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, does. Can the Minister explain why the Government are making this change? My instinct is to be mightily suspicious.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I simply rise to say that I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken and look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to share all the concerns expressed about the open-endedness of what is in the Bill and the concerns about the lack of protection for patient data. Clearly, there has been much debate and discussion, and I think it is right that we hear from the Minister.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My goodness—I thank noble Lords for their brevity. I am afraid that I shall not be as brief as I would want to be. I would like to confine myself to single-word answers, but I do not think that would give the reassurance that noble Lords are looking for.
I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have engaged with me on this, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Hunt. As they know from our discussions, this issue is very close to my heart and something I feel very strongly about, so I welcome their pressing the Government on this and their continuous engagement—in fact, right up to this morning. I do not think that this is the end of that engagement but I hope to give some reassurances. I completely understand the interest in the integrated care boards’ power to disclose information that is personal data. I hope I will be able to clarify some of the intentions.
New Section 14Z61, inserted by Clause 20, recreates the section that applies to CCGs, which sets out the circumstances in which CCGs are permitted to disclose information obtained in the exercise of their functions. The clause in question already restricts ICBs’ powers to disclose information, by limiting these to the specific circumstances set out in the clause.
In addition, the existing data protection legislation, including UK GDPR, provides several key protections and safeguards for the use of an individual’s data, including strict rules and key data protection principles for the sharing of personal data. Health data is special category data—that is data that requires additional protections due to its sensitivity. For this type of data to be processed lawfully, a further condition must be met as set out in UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act.
In addition, the common law duty of confidentiality applies to the use of confidential patient information. This permits disclosure of such information only where the individual to whom the information relates has consented, where disclosure is of overall benefit to a patient or is in the public interest—for example, disclosure is to protect individuals or society from risks of harm or where there is a statutory basis for disclosing the information or a legal duty, such as a court order, to do so.
Every health and care organisation has a Caldicott Guardian—a senior person responsible for protecting the confidentiality of people’s health and care information and making sure that it is used properly. Caldicott Guardians decide how much information it is appropriate to share—they may decide that even legally permitted information may not be shared—and they advise on disclosures that may be in the public interest. They act in accordance with the eight principles, which are the framework to ensure that people’s confidential information is kept confidential and used appropriately. The UK Caldicott Guardian Council works closely with the independent statutory National Data Guardian, whose role is to advise and challenge the health and care system to help ensure that the public’s confidential information is safeguarded securely and used properly.
Nothing in the clause overrides the range of requirements in law that provide key protections and safeguards for the use of an individual’s personal data. I can also confirm that NHS England’s power to issue guidance for ICBs will apply to their functions relating to data sharing, and that may be a helpful route in making it clear to ICBs what their duties and responsibilities are, in respect of any confidential data they may hold, in a way that illustrates how legislation applies.
The effect of the amendment is to prevent the effective operation of the clause as drafted. This would prevent the ICB from effectively discharging its functions where it may be necessary to disclose personal patient data, including investigating complaints, making safeguarding referrals for patients whose welfare is at risk, complying with court orders and assisting criminal investigations. It would also risk a confusing data-sharing system where different rules apply to different organisations.
On Amendment 116, once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for bringing this issue before this House. Our aim is to put data and analytics at the heart of NHS delivery and remove incoherence in the organisational leadership, for the benefit of patients and their outcomes. It is a solid recommendation for improving how health and social care data is used more effectively, closing that gap between delivery and the use of data to inform and improve services.
I understand that noble Lords fear that the movement of the statutory data functions from one world-class arm’s-length body, NHS Digital, to another, NHS England, which indeed runs the NHS itself, would result in a decline in the exercise of those functions. We feel that this fear is perhaps overexaggerated but I would be very happy to continue discussions on this.
However, that movement would be accompanied by the transfer of several thousand expert staff and all their supporting expertise and technology, along with the existing statutory safeguards, which would be preserved. NHS Digital and NHS England have a history of very close working on data, most recently of course in how the management of data has underpinned efforts to defeat Covid-19, through the protection of shielded patients and the management of data on vaccinations. The Government and Parliament held NHS Digital to account for the delivery of its functions, and they will continue to hold NHS England to account for the delivery of any functions which transfer.
As to the concern about a conflict of interest, the data collections which NHS Digital undertakes are the result of directions from either the Secretary of State or NHS England, and obviously the direction-making power of the former will continue to be relevant should the proposed merger take place. Directions include details of how data must be shared or disseminated. NHS Digital is required to publish details of all such directions and maintain a register of the information it collects. There is also a rigorous process for external data access requests and audits of how data is used.
The intention here is that such safeguards would continue when the functions transfer to NHS England and would make it very difficult for the organisation to suppress or otherwise refuse to make available any data which it is required to collect and disseminate in fulfilment of its statutory role. I hope, perhaps overoptimistically, that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Warner—clearly not—in terms of suppressing information.
There is a rigorous process for external data access requests. NHS England’s Transformation Directorate will be assuming responsibility for NHS Digital’s functions, and for accomplishing the alignment of delivery and data proposed in the Wade-Gery review. There will continue to be external, independent scrutiny—for example, by the Information Commissioner and the National Data Guardian—of the use by the NHS, and NHS England in particular, of health and care data.
I hope that I have given noble Lords some reassurance that these important issues have been considered by the department, and that they will feel able not to move their amendments when reached. Of course, given my strong interest in this subject, I am prepared and happy to have further conversations to make sure that we close any remaining gaps and for me push the department and NHS England as appropriate.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I now invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is taking part remotely, to reply to the debate.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, in particular for their brevity given the long day we have ahead of us. In particular I thank the Minister for his helpful response.
My Amendment 60 is very specific and I asked for a specific response. The Minister has confirmed what I wanted to hear: that health data is special category data, and that it requires additional protections due to its sensitivity, which would be applied by any ICB when it has had that request. The other key phrase that stuck out was that nothing in the clause overrides the range of requirements in law to provide those key protections and safeguards regarding individual personal data. I am therefore satisfied on that basis.
Briefly on Amendment 116, which is much broader in scope and very important for the future of data use with the proposals that are coming down stream, I agree with all the comments that were made by noble Lords. One particular thing that stood out for me was the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the publication of the Goldacre review is vital before any final version of Data Saves Lives is made public.
We will not get to a vote on Amendment 116 today. However, could the Minister assist the House and confirm that guidance will be issued, rather than a looser “may be” issued? With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lansley
(2) The integrated care partnership may be designated as the Health and Wellbeing Board where the area of the integrated care board and the responsible local authority are coterminous.(2A) If more than one Health and Wellbeing Board relates to the area of the integrated care board, the integrated care partnership may be designated as the Health and Wellbeing Boards of each responsible local authority acting in combination.(2B) The integrated care partnership must consist of—(a) one or more members appointed by the Health and Wellbeing Board or Boards,(b) members appointed by the integrated care board (equivalent in number to the number appointed by the Health and Wellbeing Board or Boards), and(c) such further members as are appointed by the integrated care partnership.”
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 61, 95 and 96, which are all in my name, are to two separate issues. Amendment 61 relates to an issue we debated a number of times in Committee, when, if I may presume, there was a degree of support among noble Lords for the proposition that integrated care partnerships, in so far as they have to produce a strategy for a needs assessment for their area, have a very complementary—indeed, one might say overlapping—responsibility with health and well-being boards established in local authorities.
I will not go into the detail of how this works, and nor do I rest on the construction of Amendment 61. I freely acknowledge that this is a tricky thing to do. There will be circumstances where one ICS, one ICB or one ICP covers a lot of local authorities and others where it covers only one or two. In the latter case, it is pretty straightforward to integrate health and well-being boards and integrated care partnerships. In other cases, the membership and construction may be more complicated.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
There has been a whole debate at Second Reading and in Committee about the equality of local government and the NHS in this regard. Importantly, local government focuses on place because it is used to doing so. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has said, the legislation does not include powers to delegate right down to local government so that it can work with the NHS—which it sees as its key responsibility—then there will be a gap, and this will not be seen as a true partnership. More importantly, the powers that would unleash some of the issues central to the Bill—better integration, reducing health inequalities and improving health outcomes—will not be achieved. There will not be the powers of delegation that will be allowed to place when innovation starts.
That is why the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, are important, particularly Amendment 96, on the roles of the place board. If the Government do not take this forward, it will be a total abdication. Place will be important in unleashing innovation, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has rightly pointed out this gap in the legislation.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has made some important and sensible points, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
My noble friend Lord Scriven raised the important question of the role of local authorities. I simply want to add that I happen to know that some of the chairs-designate of the ICBs would really like to know the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, early on in his speech. What is the relationship of the health and well-being boards to the ICBs? If those people are confused, it is not surprising that noble Lords are too.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has once again put his finger on an issue that the Government need to take seriously and which, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, has run through our debates at Second Reading and in Committee. What is the role of the ICPs’ joint working and what should a place board be doing? As I said during the previous day’s debate on Report, we need also to treat place boards—or any commissioning body—in the same way as we do the ICBs.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right. If the Government do not address this issue in the next few weeks by putting something in the Bill, we may well find ourselves back here in two or three years’ time, doing exactly what we are doing now.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, this has been an important discussion about place and joint working, and although the Government are unable to accept my noble friend’s amendments, for reasons I shall touch on, I hope I can reassure him that the questions which he and other noble Lords have raised have been considered in the Bill.
England is so large and diverse that a one-size-fits-all approach will not be right for everyone, and that is why we have been flexible about the requirements for integrated care partnerships and joint working arrangements. We fundamentally believe that, if integration is to work, we must allow local areas to find the right approach for them.
As my noble friend will appreciate, our provisions on integrated care partnerships build upon existing legislation, particularly in the case of health and well-being boards. We know that health and well-being boards have played an incredibly important role in the last decade, and this legislation intends to build on their success. We will be refreshing the guidance for health and well-being boards in the light of the changes that this Bill proposes, in order to help them understand the possibilities of these arrangements and their relationships with ICBs and ICPs, so that they can find the most appropriate model for their area.
Fortunately, this Bill and existing legislation already provide the framework to do what these amendments intend to achieve. Two or more health and well-being boards can already jointly exercise their functions, and where the local authority area and ICB area are the same, there is no reason why the health and well-being board and the ICP cannot have the same membership. The ICP is intended as an equal partnership between the local authorities and the ICB. By restricting the right of the local authority to nominate a member who they see fit and requiring them to do so through a committee with a potentially wide membership, including the ICB, risks undermining that equality. Local authorities may ask their health and well-being board to nominate those members. However, we do not wish to restrict their options and unintentionally prevent better collaboration and integration by adding further requirements to the Bill.
I turn to the joint working arrangements. The Bill also provides for the ability to establish place-based committees of ICBs and to set them out clearly in their constitutions. I assure my noble friend on this point that the legislation allows the flexibility to establish these committees, so we should not find ourselves in the situation that he talks about. ICBs will be able to enter arrangements under new Section 65Z5, which allows an ICB to delegate or exercise its functions jointly with other ICBs, NHS England, NHS trusts, foundation trusts and local authorities, or any other body prescribed by regulations. Under these powers, a committee of an ICB could be created to look at population health improvement at place level and could consider entering an arrangement under Section 65Z5 to work jointly where appropriate.
The membership of that committee can be decided locally by the ICB, and it is entirely open to the ICB to seek views from other organisations as to who best to appoint. I hope that reassures my noble friend that there is already the legal framework for ICBs to look at population health improvement at a place level. We are trying to protect the ability of ICBs to determine the structures that work best for them. To help them to do that, NHS England has the power to issue guidance to ICBs on the discharge of their functions. The flexibility that we have set out in the Bill makes my noble friend’s intentions possible. However, our provisions also give a degree of flexibility, so that areas can take control, innovate, and adopt what works best for them, rather having to meet prescriptive top-down requirements.
It is for these reasons that I hope that my noble friend feels able to withdraw his Amendment 61 and not move his Amendments 95 and 96 when they are reached.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their support, and to my noble friend for responding. I have a couple of important things to say.
First, I was not suggesting these things. I was suggesting that the legislation should reflect what the Government’s intentions are, because the integration White Paper set them out. Secondly, my noble friend said very carefully that the health and well-being boards and integrated care partnerships can have the same membership, but that is not the same as them being the same organisation. I am looking for my noble friend to say, without fear of contradiction, that where they choose locally to do so—and I am perfectly happy for there to be flexibility—local authorities and the ICBs can create an integrated care partnership which serves the functions of the health and well-being boards and the integrated care partnership in one organisation. That is the question.
On Amendments 95 and 96, I take the Minister’s point. I looked at it and thought, yes, there’s no difficulty about the place boards being a committee of the integrated care boards, but the Government in their White Paper said that there should be a single person accountable for shared outcomes in each place. That place board would have functions delegated to it from the integrated care board and local authorities. For that to happen, I cannot understand why it is not necessary for that to be reflected in Clause 62, since the existing legislation makes no reference to place boards. Also, if the person who is accountable is the chief executive of the place board, we must assume that that will not necessarily be the chief executive of the integrated care board, yet as things stand in the legislation, the chief executive of the integrated care board will be the single accountable officer. How is the accountable officer to be the chief executive of the place board?
Lord Farmer
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others to Clause 21 and Schedule 4 in the name of Lord Farmer would require integrated care partnerships to consider how to integrate health-related services into the provision of health and social care services, and specifically family help services, as relationships are recognised by research as a “health asset”. “Family help” is defined in accordance with the Independent Care Review’s starting definition. ‘Family hubs’ are named as key potential sites for delivering integrated paediatric health and family help.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
Amendment 64 has already been spoken to.
Lord Farmer (Con)
But I did not withdraw it. I was waiting for the response; nor did I have a chance to say whether or not I would divide the House.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord is correct that he can speak to Amendment 64 and, in doing so, move it, but he should then choose to withdraw it or test the opinion of the House.
Lord Farmer (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and other noble Lords, for their support, and I thank the Ministers for helping on the direction of travel for family hubs, and for family hubs being included in statutory guidance for integrated care services and bespoke guidance specifically covering family help. However, we are talking about the bronze medal position. Gold medal is primary legislation, silver is secondary, and statutory guidance is bronze, although at least we are on the podium. As the Minister said, this is ongoing. They are awaiting the review of children’s local care evaluations from 75 local authorities. I will be with them on the journey. That is all that I can say, as it is ongoing.
Amendment 75 still presents a possible risk of imposing an additional burden on local authorities in their delivery of local services. Given that I have mirrored what the Children Act 1989 says regarding now defunct family centres, the Government should really consider amending this themselves if it inappropriately burdens local authorities. In any event, I welcome the Government’s movement. I beg to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lansley
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments in my name relates to Clause 26. Noble Lords will recall that we had a rather helpful debate about this in Committee. The point is that the Care Quality Commission is an independent organisation. We want to respect that and see that carried through into its new responsibility of reviewing and inspecting the integrated care systems.
The Bill asks for “objectives and priorities” to be set by the Secretary of State. In another place, Members of the Commons inserted the idea that these priorities must include—as seen in proposed new Section 46B(3)—
“leadership, the integration of services and the quality and safety of service”.
That is fine; if they want that, let us leave it in, but I have no idea what “objectives” are in this context. Although I do not want to go down the path of semantics, for the Secretary of State to say what his or her priorities are is entirely reasonable and should be reflected in the indicators used by the CQC, but I am not sure that I know what “objectives” are in this context. Either my noble friend will explain to me what the objectives are, in which case the question of why they are not clarified further in the Bill arises, or let us leave them out—which is what most of these amendments do.
Regarding two of these amendments, it seems particularly undesirable for the Secretary of State—as in proposed new Section 46B(5) and (10)—to
“direct the Commission to revise the indicators”.
The indicators that the Care Quality Commission devises require the approval of the Secretary of State, so I am not sure why we should so trammel the independence of the CQC by enabling the Secretary of State to “direct” it to revise its indicators as opposed to denying approval, so I would rather that were not there.
Our noble friends on the Front Bench have been very accommodating; a spirit of compromise and understanding seems to have imbued the Front Bench splendidly so far. If the Minister is not minded to accept my amendments, I hope that she can at least give me some reassurance about the manner in which the Secretary of State’s powers are to be used or—in my view, this would be better—not used or extremely rarely used. I beg to move Amendment 69.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the CQC is a competent and independent organisation. Long may that continue, and any attempt to trammel it is unwelcome. We have here a 265-page Bill. If the CQC cannot get from the Bill the intentions of the Government and carry them out carefully in doing its job inspecting and reporting on how the integrated care systems are working, I do not think it needs any further direction from the Secretary of State.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I agree with that and with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We will be coming to other issues about the Secretary of State’s powers later on Report, but the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has put her finger on it. I think I was there at the CQC’s inception because I was a Minister at the time, or certainly soon after. It has discharged its duties extremely well. The Minister needs to explain why the Government feel it necessary to put these powers into the Bill.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising this issue. I hope in the spirit of collaboration and compromise I am able to provide him with some further clarity and reassurance, even if I am not able to support his amendments.
Flourishing systems are critical to the success of integration and many of the proposals in the Bill. In that context it is right that the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament, can set the overall strategic direction of reviews of integrated care systems through setting objectives and priorities for the CQC in relation to those assessments. However, it will be the CQC as the independent regulator and expert which will develop and carry out those reviews.
In Committee, noble Lords across this House raised several matters that these reviews should or could look at—from children to rare conditions—and it is right that the Secretary of State should be able to set objectives to explain the intent that lies behind high-level priorities such as leadership, integration quality and safety. These objectives will aid the CQC in its development of the review methodology and quality indicators and lay out where specific focuses should be given. The current clause allows the Secretary of State to make these distinctions and be more nuanced, just as is permitted for CQC reviews of local authority functions relating to adult social care set out in Clause 152. To remove the Secretary of State’s ability to set objectives is to remove nuance, which in turn could dilute the focus of these reviews on particular patient pathways or integration arrangements.
Furthermore, the Secretary of State must be able to ensure that the CQC’s role is complementary to other assessments, such as NHS England’s oversight of ICBs. This is achieved in part through the Secretary of State’s role in approving and directing to revise the indicators of quality, methods and approach. Removing the Secretary of State’s ability to direct the CQC to revise indicators risks the Secretary of State being locked in after approving the methodology. This could prevent the Government being able to respond to shifting developments in health and care, thus undermining the review’s relevance as time progresses.
I further reassure my noble friend and other noble Lords that we expect the power to direct to revise to be used infrequently, so as not to disrupt CQC reviews. The Government fully respect the independence of the CQC, and these powers are designed to ensure that its reviews of the integrated care systems are effective without undermining that independence.
It is for these reasons that I hope my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment and not move his further amendments when they are reached.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend and for the support of noble Lords for the concept. I hope the CQC will find that this assists it in ensuring that it remains independent in how it goes about its job, and, indeed, how it derives indicators of quality and fitness for purpose. I take my noble friend’s point about what objectives might be. They might be, for example, objectives of the nature of the service that the review should cover so the Government might have some national priorities. I think the word “priorities” would have been sufficient.
I confess to my noble friend that I did not understand why the Secretary of State might come in and direct the CQC to change its indicators. It would have been perfectly reasonable for the Secretary of State to have waited and seen what the CQC said. The CQC will clearly change its indicators from time to time as technologies and services adapt, and it could have been trusted to do it. I will not press the point and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 69.
Baroness Penn
“Armed Forces Act 2006
82A_(1) Section 343AA of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (due regard to principles: England)(as inserted by section 8(3) of the Armed Forces Act 2021) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (3), for paragraph (h) substitute—“(h) an integrated care board;”.(3) In subsection (8)—(a) omit the definition of “clinical commissioning group”;(b) at the appropriate place insert—““integrated care board” means a body established under section 14Z25 of the National Health Service Act 2006;”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Clause 14 of the Bill, which establishes integrated care boards.
“Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022
239_ The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 is amended as follows.240_(1) Section 25 (relevant review partners) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2)(c) for “a clinical commissioning group” substitute “an integrated care board”.(3) In subsection (3)(c) for “clinical commissioning group” substitute “integrated care board”.241_ In section 36 (interpretation), in subsection (1)—(a) omit the definition of “clinical commissioning group”;(b) at the appropriate place insert—““integrated care board” means a body established under section 14Z25 of the National Health Service Act 2006;”;(c) in the definition of “review partner”, for paragraph (c) substitute—“(c) an integrated care board, or”.242_ In Schedule 1 (specified authorities and local government areas), in the table headed “Health and social care”—(a) for “A clinical commissioning group established under section 14D” substitute “An integrated care board established under section 14Z25”; (b) for “the group’s” substitute “the board’s”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Clause 14 of the Bill, which establishes integrated care boards.
Baroness Penn
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the insertion into section 13U of the NHS Act 2006, by another amendment, of a duty for NHS England to include additional matters in its annual report.
“Duties in respect of research
In section 1E of the National Health Service Act 2006 (duty as to research), after “must” insert “facilitate or otherwise”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause provides that the Secretary of State’s duty to promote research etc includes doing so by facilitating research.
Baroness Cumberlege
“(1) The Secretary of State must, at least once every two years, lay a report before Parliament describing the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health, social care and public health services in England.(2) This report must include—(a) an independently verified assessment of health, social care and public health workforce numbers, current at the time of publication, and the projected workforce supply for the following five, ten and 20 years; and(b) an independently verified assessment of future health, social care and public health workforce numbers based on the projected health and care needs of the population for the following five, ten and 20 years, taking account of the Office for Budget Responsibility long-term fiscal projections.(3) NHS England and Health Education England must assist in the preparation of a report under this section.(4) The organisations listed in subsection (3) must consult health and care employers, providers, trade unions, Royal Colleges, universities and any other persons deemed necessary for the preparation of this report, taking full account of workforce intelligence, evidence and plans provided by local organisations and partners of integrated care boards.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to publish independently verified assessments every two years of current and future workforce numbers required to deliver care to the population in England, taking account of the economic projections made by the Office for Budget Responsibility, projected demographic changes, the prevalence of different health conditions and the likely impact of technology.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, as this is Report, I declare my interests, which are that I am employed by NHS England to implement my report on maternity, Better Births.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak shortly to Amendment 168, but want briefly to refer to Amendment 80, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and so eloquently introduced by her, and supported across the House. Workforce planning is critical. Frankly, it is surprising that Ministers resisted amendments in Committee which called for formal long-term workforce planning for the NHS, social care and public health to be embedded in legislation.
The noble Baroness said that that current arrangements can be a bit like sticking plasters, and she is right, but it is not just about the use of bank and agency staff but about planning healthcare professional education. We all know how long it takes to train a doctor, but most of the other professionals also cannot just be turned on and off at election time. There have been too many times when this Government have said at elections that they would suddenly magic thousands of extra doctors and nurses. We need to build timescales into that workforce planning. The noble Baroness also talked about population demand, but I want to make another point: this is not just about population numbers; it is also about demographics. We will need more GPs and hospital professionals managing our rapidly ageing population. If we do not encourage people to go into those specialisms, we will not be able to look after our population in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time.
I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that if government resistance is because of the funding implications with delivering such a plan, that is very short sighted. Not planning will be even more catastrophic. Amendment 80 is more modest in nature but is a critical minimum to achieve a commitment to plan effectively for the NHS, social care and public health.
I turn now to Amendment 168. Given that there are a number of speakers on this important group, I will be very brief here too. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, echoes the one he laid in Committee, and I am pleased to have signed both. We heard in Committee about this frustrating loophole that meant that it was not possible for certain members of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine to be added to the list of colleges which could be involved in the appointment of NHS consultants. This is now slowing down the appointment of NHS consultants. I am very pleased to support the amendment and hope the Minister will be able to give good news to the House on this amendment too.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
Now I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who is also speaking remotely, to speak.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 80 and 168. Amendment 80 is very important and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for being so persistent. Throughout the country there is a workforce shortage in hospitals, the community and social care. At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, warned that:
“Unless expressly required to do so, government will not be honest about the mismatch between the supply and demand of healthcare workers.”—[Official Report, 7/12/21; col. 1814.]
This amendment would give an independently verified assessment of the workforce numbers to meet the growing needs of the population.
Patients who have serious, rare and specialised conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, spinal injuries and all sorts of conditions need expert, specialised staff and equipment so they get the treatment they need. Otherwise, their conditions can deteriorate and result in added costs to the NHS and the taxpayer. Delayed treatment also means unnecessary pain and suffering for the patients. I hope the Government realise the need for Amendment 80.
I was surprised when I received a letter from the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh telling me that, along with the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow and the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, it was excluded by omission from participating in the process of helping trusts in England recruit much-needed consultants. I wonder what the reason for this extraordinary discrimination is. Does England think it is superior? These royal colleges have been contacted by multiple trusts in England seeking help to recruit the necessary surgeons but, unless this regulation is corrected, they cannot help in this process. This sharing of important selection is more important than ever at this difficult time.
The royal colleges of medicine in Scotland have a good reputation worldwide. I have a personal interest in this amendment, as one of my grandfathers trained as a doctor in Glasgow and one of my cousins trained in Edinburgh and is now a professor of microbiology. I hope the Government can rectify this lacuna in the regulations by accepting this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I am an honorary fellow of the two Edinburgh colleges and I strongly support this. It seems extraordinary that these very distinguished colleges which, as has been said, have an excellent record over many years in teaching people not only in this country but in many other countries should be excluded from playing a part in these appointments.
I also support Amendment 80 but would like to elaborate on it a little. I think Health Education England was set up, by the Act that we had before, with some degree of contention. It is a system that is supposed to help determine the future for the health service, with fairly elaborate provisions to that effect, as I remember from that Bill.
It is not at all clear to me how this assessment is going to be done. I see it has to be verified independently, in other words somebody independent of the whole system has to assess it for its accuracy. However, if you need Health Education England to do this for the medical professions particularly, why do you not need something similar to deal with the very complicated system of social care? Therefore, I think the whole system requires to be extended to cover something like Health Education England in relation to the whole area that this amendment covers. The Secretary of State sets up some kind of mechanism for report; it has to be a pretty elaborate mechanism if it is going to work. Therefore, I humbly suggest that something like Health Education England is needed to be the basis on which this assessment arises. Then, of course, you have to provide for the independent assessment of whether it was a good assessment originally. I support this amendment, but I think something more elaborate is ultimately required.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I will just speak to my Amendments 111 and 168. On Amendment 111, when the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Masham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, have already put forward the arguments, there is very little for me to say, but the exclusion of the Scottish colleges from the appointment process needs to be rectified. It is an irritant, a hold-up.
In Committee, the noble Lord said that we needed to go through consultation. That was a dreary and negative response. The Scottish colleges have done that. They have consulted and got the support of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, NHS Employers and the NHS Confederation. Surely the Minister can just accept this amendment. To simply say that there is no need for it and lots of consultation has to take place is just a ludicrous waste of time and money. This is the time to do it. He should bring an amendment back on Third Reading and be done with it. The noble Lord says that he wants to improve efficiency in the health service. I am afraid I take that with a pinch of salt, because he is just letting officials run riot around him in relation to petty, bureaucratic objections to this change.
Obviously, my other amendment is not major compared to Amendment 80, which is substantial and very important. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has really put it forward with great force. Again, I think the noble Lord needs to take a more vigorous approach with the Treasury, because clearly that is where the objection to this is coming from.
My other amendment is about the terrible problem of GP distribution, or the wide variations. I am not going to tempt the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to come in on the GP issue—but the latest figures, for 31 December 2021, show, for primary care networks in England, the huge variation in the number of GPs. In 24 of the networks, the average list of registered patients for fully qualified full-time equivalent GPs is more than twice the national average. There are five primary care networks where the average is more than three times the national average; these are often in the most deprived areas. No wonder there is an issue of burnout, early retirements and a move to part-time working.
The Government’s response so far is the targeted enhanced recruitment scheme—an incentive for GPs to go into these areas. It is not enough; a much more substantive piece of work is required, and I hope again that the Minister will come forward with a positive response.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I shall speak to Amendment 82 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I attended Second Reading and made my views felt then, but I have not been able to join the deliberations on the Bill since then because of the pressure of other Bills in your Lordships’ House.
Even I, as someone who does not know very much about medicine, know that the most urgent challenge currently facing our health service is a shortage of nurses. I have been lobbied very heavily by the Royal College of Nursing, because Amendment 82 is its number one priority. It feels that, without a co-ordinated work plan, a coherent forward view and knowledge of exactly how the situation is at the moment, it cannot possibly achieve the sorts of numbers that are needed. There were almost 50,000 vacancies before Covid, and you can imagine the pressure that Covid has put on to the NHS—extreme pressure at completely unsustainable levels, and with staff numbers that are actually unsafe. We all know this, yet Boris Johnson and the Conservatives made big promises at the last election—their manifesto made a promise of 50,000 more nurses—and instantly that number began to unravel, as it included existing nurses who do not quit. That is unclever and unsophisticated number crunching.
I do not understand why this Government will not live up to their manifesto commitments. One reason why I have not been able to speak on this Bill since Second Reading is because of all the other Bills coming through, on which the Conservatives have said that they are aiming to achieve their manifesto commitments. They are actually going rather beyond their manifesto commitments in lots of areas—but the fact is that they are picking and choosing as if from a box of sweets the ones that they prefer.
The Royal College of Nursing represents over 480,000 nurses in health and social care. These are people whose pay requests are constantly ignored—and who constantly have their pay cut; in real terms, it has reduced. Just at the point when MPs are getting very welcome extra pay, nurses hang on by their fingertips. We know that vacancies are also a huge problem, with retirement age approaching for a lot of nurses. Nurses need the certainty of planning, and I do not hear those plans coming from the Government, although this is really their job—to manage the economy and manage society in a way that benefits everybody. Clearly, if the NHS fails in any area, that does not benefit anybody at all.
I argue very strongly for Amendment 82, and I just hope that the Government wake up in time to see how necessary it is.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to co-sponsor the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, Amendment 80, and to speak in support of a number of the other amendments in this group. I declare my honorary fellowship of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of GPs, and thank them and the 100 other organisations across the health and social care sector that have joined in the cross-party support that this amendment is likely to generate.
In considering how to vote on this amendment, I think it really boils down to two very straightforward questions. First, do we need regular, rigorous and independent workforce planning for health, social care and public health? The social care point, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has just reminded us, is so crucial here. The second question is: if so, will we get it, with appropriate rigour and independence, without this amendment? I suggest that the answer to that question is, unfortunately, no.
The first question is self-evident to most people. We discussed it throughout Committee: workforce pressures mean that it is obvious that we need regular workforce planning. The very long lead times make it critical. Earlier this week, your Lordships were debating pressures in young people’s mental health services and eating disorder services. It is worth reminding ourselves that a new consultant psychiatrist specialising in eating disorders, starting work in NHS mental health services this morning, will have entered medical school 15 years ago. It is worth reminding ourselves, too, at a time when the NHS is confronting long waits for routine operations and needs to deal with a backlog of care, that the new medical student starting undergraduate medicine in September will report for duty as a consultant orthopaedic surgeon in 2037.
So the lead times are clear, yet we have a paradox: more young people and, indeed, mid-career people, would like to join this great campaign, this social movement—the health service, social care and public health—but we are turning them away. In 1945, Nye Bevan said:
“This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organising genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time.”
I suggest that, if Bevan were recasting his aphorism for today, he would say that, at a time when the NHS and social care have such a clear need for more staff, only a workforce planning system of organisational genius could turn away bright and committed young people from undergraduate medicine and other oversubscribed university places for health and other professions.
We have to accept that there will be extra costs from getting this right. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was quite right to draw attention to the fact that there will be savings, including from the £6.2 billion spent in 2019-20 on agency and bank staffing across the health service. But there will be extra costs: the Royal College of Physicians has estimated that doubling undergraduate medicine places would cost perhaps £1.85 billion, which is about one-seventh of the amount that the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee identified last week as being likely to be lost from fraud and waste through the various furlough and other schemes introduced during Covid. So I think we need to put these costs in perspective.
The fact that there will be those costs gives us the answer to our second question. Of course, we need workforce planning, but are we going to get it without this amendment? I am afraid that I do not think we are. In Committee—although I shall not rehearse it—using publicly available materials, I set out the sorry history of what I described as the “wilful blindness” that has been inflicted on the health and social care sector and, indeed, on health Ministers and the Department of Health and Social Care itself, as they have sought to go about this task down the years.
The question before your Lordships is: has the leopard changed its spots? I suspect—and I genuinely sympathise with the Minister’s predicament—that he will tell us that the baton has now been passed from the Department of Health and Social Care to NHS England, so that for the first time it has the responsibility for undertaking this task, and we should be reassured by that fact. In that case, I ask him to give clear guarantees at the Dispatch Box that the proposed new powers of direction for the Secretary of State will never be used to veto or censor any independent estimates that NHS England itself puts forward, including those with a financial consequence. Indeed, I ask that he goes further than that and gives us a Dispatch Box guarantee that NHS England will be entirely free to publish, every two years, without approval, veto or censorship from either the Department of Health or the Treasury, the workforce need, demand and supply models implied in Amendment 80. If those guarantees are not forthcoming from the Dispatch Box, I think your Lordships will be entitled to draw your own conclusions.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, would the noble Lord be surprised to hear the rumours that the Treasury has prevented the Minister from responding in a positive way to this amendment?
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
We await insight from the Minister himself on that point; it is indeed, of course, what the chairman of the cross-party Health and Social Care Committee, Jeremy Hunt, suggested in the House of Commons. We have an immediate litmus test before us, which should help us answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. As your Lordships will remember, we noted in Committee the fact that, just 10 weeks before the start of the financial year, when it should have been planning 10 years out, Health Education England still did not have its operating budget for the year ahead. My understanding—I hope to be corrected by the Minister—is that, certainly, as of 10 am, Health Education England still does not have its workforce operating budget for just 29 days’ time. That is precisely because of a set of behind-the-scenes discussions—no doubt courteous, but nevertheless fervent—between the Department of Health and Social Care on the one hand and the Treasury on the other.
Health Ministers are more sinned against than sinning on this, frankly, and in that sense this amendment will strengthen their hand. I suspect that, privately, they will welcome the mobilisation of your Lordships to support their negotiating case. The very fact that Her Majesty’s Government oppose this amendment is proof positive that it is needed. We need it because we need to look beyond the end of our noses. To vote against this amendment would be to cut off our noses to spite our faces.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, this whole group is worthy of government action, and I support Amendments 80 and 81 in respect of speech and language therapists. The NHS Long Term Plan itself states that speech and language therapists are a profession in short supply. The Department of Health and Social Care, in its submission to the Migration Advisory Committee’s review of the shortage occupation lists, argues that speech and language therapists should be added to them because of the pressures facing these professions, particularly in relation to mental health.
The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, for whose advice I am grateful, suggests that a minimum increase in the skilled workforce is required in the region of 15%. In recent years, the profession has grown by 1.7% in a year. The Government themselves recognise that they are clearly not delivering the speech and language therapy workforce that we need. No national assessment has been undertaken of the demand and the unmet need for speech and language therapy, which, I remind noble Lords, is essential for people to be able to communicate. Will the Government accept Amendments 80 and 81 or explain otherwise how they plan to improve workforce planning so that speech and language therapy is no longer a profession in too short supply?
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I will be exceptionally brief and make two very quick points, but first I need to apologise for, when I spoke earlier, omitting to mention my registered interest as a non-executive director of the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust.
I very strongly support Amendment 80, moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and pressed so very cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and others. It is absolutely fundamental to everything that the Bill is designed to achieve, and we will not achieve those things unless the workforce is addressed.
In relation to Amendment 111 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I say that it is so important that we have a review into the distribution of GPs in England. I was very concerned when we debated in Committee the huge variation in list numbers in different parts of the country. The biggest lists were in the most deprived areas. If you track that back to the debate we were having on health inequalities, where there was a huge consensus across the House, it is clear that we are never going to fundamentally tackle health inequalities unless we have far greater equality in things like the size of GPs’ lists.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I also support my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and Amendment 80. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, made two points: I would just like to add a third to his argument. He argued that workforce planning needs to happen. There is no large employer of people that does not plan its workforce other than the NHS. We need to do it, and I do not think anyone in this Chamber is going to disagree. He also said that this would not happen without legislation. I will not repeat the points I made at Second Reading or in Committee, or those that he just made so eloquently.
My third point, which I would like to add, is very much addressed to my noble friend the Minister. It is that this amendment will not bring the downsize that the Treasury truly fears. This is actually an amendment of sound management that enables the NHS to manage finances and people better. While there will be more money spent on training, this is actually the way to control the costs of the ever-growing demand for health and social care. If you do not plan, you cannot control the costs. This is actually the way to do the very thing that the Treasury is most concerned about.
Far from locking in old, established ways of working, this is also the way to drive transformation because, unless we are honest about the ever-growing demand for clinicians of every profession, we will not face the fact that we will need to change the way those clinicians work together as medicine and science evolve and all of us age. This is a way to deliver the very thing that the Treasury most wants: control of the finances and transformation of our healthcare services.
With that, I add one final point, and I hope noble Lords will forgive me for repeating what I said in Committee. There is another reason why we need to do this now. Our NHS people are exhausted, and they have lost hope that we understand what it is really like on the ground for them. By passing this amendment, we will give them hope; we will show them that, collectively and cross-party, we really understand that it is they who make our wonderful, precious health and care system work, and we are committed to helping them going forward.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I must declare my interests: I am a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Academy of Medical Sciences, and the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, which is affected by Amendment 168. I am an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and an observer on the Medical Schools Council. All those organisations have a vested interest in this amendment.
Very simply, this amendment just makes sense for the future. Without it, the cost of healthcare to the nation will rack up and never come under control. The talk about people working in the NHS is a fallacy. What matters is whole-time equivalents and the competencies of those people with whole-time equivalents. While it is absolutely right to say that it might take 15 years for somebody to come through training as a specialist, what is not understood is that, as soon as people qualify, having left their undergraduate training, they are then on the job. They are learning on the job, working incredibly hard and contributing, but they do not have the competencies developed. That is what takes a long time. The modern techniques that get things done much more quickly and that deal with more patients—laparoscopic surgery having been an example—are highly skilled, but highly efficient.
We have a shortage of 1,400 anaesthetists. Without anaesthetists, you cannot have good maternity services, you cannot operate and you cannot have good emergency services. They are absolutely essential to the whole running of secondary care. Then, of course, in primary care, we have the gaps as well, so the specialist training is really important.
As well as that, this cannot be handed over to algorithms on a computer and left to IT, because of the need for personal interaction between the clinician and the patient and their family. I do not believe that this will be replaced by AI. However, many jobs performed currently will be taken over by AI, freeing up clinicians to become even more specialist competent.
Building on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, I remind the House that poor care overall is more expensive than good care in the long term. It is a very short-term view to think that you can provide poor care; in the long term, you really do stack up debt. Stopping workforce planning will not avoid costs at all; all it will do is move the costs from one year further into the future and create bigger problems. Although I hesitate to say it, I think it will also fuel the whole litigation culture.
Amendment 80 is absolutely essential. If it is accepted by the Government, or passed by this House, then Amendments 81 and 82 would fit very neatly into the criteria against which such reports are to be written on the workforce. I remind noble Lords who might be unaware of this that the royal colleges already collect workforce data. Verification of data collected from integrated care boards and areas will not be difficult, because you will simply see how the figures match up. The figures will be reported centrally, and planning can take place. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is so straightforward; I cannot see why we want to rack up costs further by not putting it through. Vacant posts cost money, they do not save money. By putting that through, we will have more efficient appointment procedures. This is an historical anomaly which could be corrected easily.
Relying on bank staff is really dangerous. Mistakes happen much more often when staff come in who do not know the place, the team or who to call. You would never field a sports team consisting of a bunch of people brought together to play at a high level who had never played before. Yet, what we are doing in our NHS is bringing in bank staff who often do not know the hospital or the team. They do not know the strengths of the other people in the team, so they do not know to whom they can delegate. I hope that the House will approve Amendment 80 if the Government are too short-sighted to just accept it.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support very strongly Amendments 80, 81 and others in the group. They have already been explained eloquently, so I will not repeat those arguments. I declare my interest as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. We have already heard about their importance, as a profession, as part of the wider allied health professionals. It is always worth remembering that allied health professionals make up a third of the total workforce.
Responding to workforce planning in Committee, the Minister stated that he shares the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—from whom we have just heard—on the importance of
“integrated workforce planning across NHS and non-NHS employers … and that work is under way on it.”—[Official Report, 24/01/22; col. 102.]
Unfortunately, at that time the Minister did not set out what that work was. The response did not really give a great deal of hope regarding the long-term failings in workforce planning for allied health professionals in general and speech and language therapists in particular. We need to ensure that this is addressed. As we have heard, these amendments properly address the issue.
I draw particular attention to subsection (4) of Amendment 80, which clearly states that royal colleges must be consulted in drawing up the report which will be laid before Parliament on
“meeting the workforce needs of the health, social care and public health services in England.”
By that consultation, we should ensure that allied health professionals, and particularly speech and language therapists, are included. These professionals sometimes work directly in the NHS. Often, however, they work in other health settings and can be employed in those settings by the NHS. They might also work in settings such as education, the criminal justice system and other parts of the social care system, or in independent practice. They should all form part of the consultation to ensure that the plans which come forward on workforce planning are comprehensive in their nature and coverage. Therefore, these amendments are crucial to achieving this objective. I am sure that the Minister will want to give us that same assurance when he responds.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support this group of amendments and to declare my interest as a fellow of the Royal College of Nursing. It is absolutely clear to me that, without the right staff in the right place, you cannot give the right care. This is the situation we are in at the moment, and we must get it right for the future. We are on an improvement trajectory, and there is an increase in the number of nurses employed in the NHS. However, this is not universal across all areas of the NHS, particularly in learning disability and mental health.
If we could get the Government to support Amendment 80, we could resolve the issue through guidance. On Amendment 81, I also speak for my noble friend Lord Patel, who unfortunately cannot be here today and who believes that an elegant solution as described by my noble friend Baroness Finlay, in terms of guidance subsuming Amendment 82 in particular, would enable directors of nursing, medicine and care to be responsible for ensuring that they have a safe staffing structure in the areas for which they commission care. That would be reported up every two years through the Secretary of State, rather than every five years, as indicated in Amendment 82. This would be a much more suitable solution.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will intervene. I was not intending to speak but I was prompted by a recollection arising from the reference to anaesthetists by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I recall that the Centre for Workforce Intelligence produced in February 2015 a report on the future supply and demand of anaesthetists and the intensive care medicine workforce. I have just checked the report, and it projects for 2033 that the number of full-time equivalent staff required will be 11,800, and supply will be 8,000. Therefore, in February 2015, we knew of this set of projections produced by the CWI. It said, among other things, that there should be
“a further review in the next two to three years.”
However, the CWI was abolished in 2016 and its functions were restored, I think, to the Department of Health.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, did not refer to this directly, but we must bear in mind the general presumption that there has never been workforce planning, although in certain respects, there has. The report on anaesthetists is only one of a whole string of reports—I could list them, but I do not need to—produced by the Centre for Workforce Intelligence before it was abolished. Their main purpose was to say to Health Education England, “This is the level of education and training commissioning you should be undertaking in the years ahead”. As the noble Lord said in Committee, it did produce a set of proposals; it is just that they were not acted upon.
I just say this: legislation may be the right way to proceed now, but let us not lose sight of what is actually required, which is for Health Education England not to have its budget cut, as happened in 2016, but to have its budget increased and for that budget to be turned into an education and training commissioning programme that delivers the numbers of trained professionals in this country that we project we will need. It is no good saying, “Oh, we’ve never had planning; we passed a piece of legislation.” I am sorry, it could be a case of legislate and forget unless the money is provided and the commissioning happens. There have been organisations whose job it was to do it—Health Education England, the Centre for Workforce Intelligence—but they were not supported, and in one case, abolished.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 111 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 80 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. On Amendment 111, I want to emphasise two points. First, GPs are and have always been the gatekeepers to the NHS. Without GPs, there is less primary care and less access to the NHS. Over 90% of patients access the NHS through their GPs and primary care. If you are unlucky enough to live in an area with a serious shortage of GPs, your access to NHS services is highly likely to be diminished and your health put at greater risk.
My second point is that it follows that a shortage of GPs is also likely to contribute to health inequalities, a topic much discussed during the passage of the Bill. In addition, this is likely to mean that you live in a place which the Government say they want to level up. So, if the Minister accepts the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, he will be helping to deliver two government objectives: reducing health inequalities and levelling up. What’s not to like? Who knows—he might even get a promotion out of it.
I turn briefly to Amendment 80, which I support and will vote for if the noble Baroness pushes it to a vote. I want, however, to emphasise two points that follow on a great deal from what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said. For too long the NHS has relied on buttressing its inadequate system for training home-grown staff by recruiting from abroad. Brexit and tighter immigration policies have significantly reduced this supply line. It will take long-term planning and consistency of purpose over many years to rectify the health and care workforce supply problems.
My second and last related point on workforce is that the track record of the Department of Health on long-term planning is appalling. It is not just me saying that; it was made absolutely clear in the report by this House’s Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who unfortunately, as we all know, is laid low by Covid. Those who support Amendment 80 should hear the arguments in the debate on Amendment 112, which would support its implementation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, thought that something more elaborate than Amendment 80 was required. That may be the case, particularly for social care, but Amendments 80 and 112 complement each other. They are not rivals or alternatives; they put in place a structure thoroughly independent of government and which requires the Government then to pay attention to what has been independently provided.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, it is clear that there remain huge and serious concerns across the House and beyond regarding how the Bill addresses the chronic staff shortages in our health and care services. I say health and care services, because as we know, the staff shortages affecting the delivery of services are not just within the NHS but felt across the board, in health, care and public health services. While this is a current and urgent issue, future workforce planning will be the single most important factor in limiting our ability to deliver the ambitions we all have for the future of health and social care and importantly, the ambitions of the Bill.
Like many other noble Lords, I have the greatest respect for my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, and if she feels that the current duties the Bill places on the Secretary of State in Clause 35 to report at least every five years are inadequate, then I urge the Government to take note. As my noble friend said when she introduced her amendment, she is not alone: at least another 100 organisations are calling for this aspect of the Bill to be strengthened. I ask the Minister today, therefore: if the Government are not planning to accept the amendment, how do they plan to address the challenges of future workforce? How will they assess the future needs of health, social care and public health services? Previous work has not quantified the workforce numbers needed and we cannot wait for another review.
I have a couple of observations on the amendment itself, which I commend in that it does require the Secretary of State to report on this wider health, social care and public health workforce, unlike the current Clause 35, which refers only to the health service. However, I sound a note of caution, because if we simply assess vacancy rates, or get into the mindset of needing to replace like for like, role and service development, which will be essential to support future health and care services as they evolve, risk being stifled, as my noble friend Lady Harding referred to.
Those who hold much of the data on health and care professionals are not only the royal colleges, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned, but also the regulators. I note that proposed new subsection (4) of the amendment does not mention health and care regulators, which I think should be consulted, in the spirit of my noble friend’s explanatory statement.
Finally, when describing the system in place for assessing and meeting workforce needs, as training and regulation are UK-wide, I hope there will be a spirit of co-operation between NHS England and the devolved nations to ensure that we are training the right people for the right roles across the UK NHS: this needs to be in any future workforce assessment as well. I also cannot understand why we do not accept that the royal colleges in Glasgow and Edinburgh can help us recruit. That seems completely bananas—that is the technical term. Will the Government accept that we cannot put workforce planning yet again into the “too difficult” box? We need to do more and go further, as my noble friend Lady Cumberlege urges. I accept there are no silver bullets, but the regular publication of independently verified projections of future demand and supply of workforce could, over time, create a sustainable model for improvement that would have a positive impact on both patient care and staff experience.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on the way she introduced Amendment 80—it was masterful. I point out that she took this amendment from the right honourable Jeremy Hunt, who unfortunately failed to get it through the House of Commons. In doing so, he expressed his regret that, when he was Secretary of State, he was not able to put in place a structure such as the noble Baroness proposes today.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, have both commented that it is self-evident that we need a workforce adequate to meet the demand. To do that, we need to anticipate increasing demand, changes in demographics, population growth and changes in practice. Crucially, we need to put in place resilience to health shocks. If we do not do that, we will continue to struggle to reach the OECD average of 3.7 doctors per 1,000 people, which is reasonable. To get there, we actually need 50,000 more doctors.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out, this is not just about doctors. It is also about nurses and, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, it is about allied health professionals. We need to train them all in a timely way, given, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, pointed out, how long it takes to train all these health professionals.
The Prime Minister claimed in the House of Commons recently that we have 45,000 more people working in the health service than before the pandemic. Unusually, that may be true, but it was not clear whether they were full-time professionals. However, that number bears no relation to the demand. There is no point in quoting raw figures if they are not related to the rise in demand. Moreover, there are fewer GPs than before the pandemic, and that is where people’s access to the NHS begins. If someone cannot get to see a GP, they cannot get a diagnosis or a referral, and their disease gets harder and more expensive to treat. Having too few GPs is not a cost-effective strategy, so I support Amendment 111, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and also his Amendment 168.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This powerful debate has focused on two simple truths. First, without the full team of people in place at the right time, it will not be possible to provide the health, social care and public health services we need. The second simple truth is that this will not just happen on its own. I am therefore glad to have put my name to Amendment 80, joining the noble Baronesses, Lady Cumberlege and Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, in so doing. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for her impactful introduction of the amendment. I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that this is the amendment to focus on, the one that will take us in the direction we need to go.
It is hardly surprising that the need for workforce planning has come up time and again during the passage of the Bill, and it is not going away. Workforce planning is at the core of all the plans, yet it remains unresolved and continues to cause considerable disquiet, including in the Health and Social Care Select Committee. We know this is an urgent requirement to tackle, and I hope that, even at this late stage, good sense will prevail and the Minister will be able to give the assurances that your Lordships’ House seeks.
The lack of sufficient staff, trained and able to deliver care, is the biggest issue facing the NHS and social care. Whatever claims are made about how many staff there are, they are meaningless unless posed against what is actually required. Since the Bill was published there has been universal opposition to the limited and inadequate provision in Clause 35. As my noble friend Lord Hunt noted, the Treasury’s robust resistance to publishing anything that sets out properly the gap between the number of staff required and of those in post is a badly kept secret. I regard that as short-sighted for all the reasons that have come up in the debate thus far.
It is reported that a record number of 400 members of staff are quitting the NHS every week. The United Kingdom has 50,000 fewer doctors than we need, and there are currently 100,000 vacancies. Workforce planning needs to be in place to give us the chance to assess and tackle the workforce crisis. Today we have the opportunity to put that right. As we have heard, the amendment is supported by a major coalition of some 100 health and care organisations. As my noble friend Lord Bradley said, it also takes strength from giving the opportunity to consult a comprehensive range of organisations and groups that know the reality of what is needed to run our care services. We should add our support to that.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for adding their support to my Amendment 81. It tackles the same problem, but from the bottom up. Without the foundation of a workforce plan, no ICB can plan anything properly, as they are required to do by other parts of the Bill. There is also the wider point that the national strategies or definitions of systems planning have no reality unless they transfer down to those who actually have to deliver the outcomes. We know that there are widespread and well-evidenced arguments in support of workforce planning. I urge the Minister to accept the wisdom and the reality of these amendments and to take the opportunity to fix a challenge that surely is not going away.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for bringing the discussion of workforce planning before the House today. Perhaps before I go further, all noble Lords will want to join me in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Patel, a speedy recovery. He definitely would have spoken in this debate if he had been able to join us. I should also say that I was particularly impressed by the double act of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Stevens. Perhaps they will be known in future as the Morecambe and Wise of the House of Lords.
We all agree that the workforce is at the heart of our NHS and social care. It is right to ensure that we have the workforce that we need for the future to keep delivering world-class, safe and effective healthcare. Some noble Lords may not like to hear this, but I remind them that we have a record number of nurses. We continue to look at different ways of recruitment, and in response to Oral Questions I have referred to the way that we are looking at different pathways into nursing for British people. It is also a fact that we have always recruited people from overseas. Indeed, our public services were saved, post-war, by people from the Commonwealth coming to work in public services. I remind noble Lords that now we have left the EU we will no longer give priority to mostly white Europeans over mostly non-white non-Europeans. We will focus on ensuring that we have equality across the world.
I will not repeat what I have said about other issues, but if you are to have workforce growth, which we all want, it must be accompanied by effective, long-term workforce planning. That is why the department has commissioned Health Education England to work with partners to develop a robust, long-term strategic framework for the health and regulated social care workforce for the next 15 years. This includes regulated professionals working in adult social care, such as nurses and occupational therapists, for the first time.
Lord Warner (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but when I listened to that last statement about Health Education England, I wondered whether he had seen the article in the Economist of 5 February, which shows that the guaranteed forward funding of Health Education England extended to less than a month ahead.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord because that was a point I was hoping to come to when I lost my line. The budget will be agreed by the start of the new financial year and, as in all previous years, following the outcome of the 2021 spending review, spending plans for individual budgets in 2022-23 to 2024-25 inclusive will be subjected to a detailed financial planning exercise, and it will be finalised in time. We have also commissioned NHS England to develop that long-term workforce strategy and the key conclusions from this work will be set out.
Clause 35 will increase the transparency and accountability of the workforce planning process. Noble Lords referred to Her Majesty’s Treasury. The department is working closely with the Treasury to deliver a bigger and better NHS and social care workforce. The spending review 2021 provides a further £23 billion for the NHS for April 2022 to March 2025 and gives a three-year settlement. It will keep building a bigger and better-trained workforce.
Noble Lords also referred to agency staff. The flexible staffing policy aims to provide sufficient temporary staff to the NHS to meet fluctuations in demand. In 2015 the Secretary of State announced the introduction of several measures to reduce the agency spend, including price caps, procurement frameworks and expenditure ceilings. These have contributed to the NHS reducing spending on agency staff by one-third, but we recognise that there is more work to be done. We also recognise that the health and social care workforces are often spoken about separately, and the department is working to integrate the two workforces, as outlined in the integration White Paper. Noble Lords will recall that, in addition, we have started a voluntary register for care staff, which we hope to move to being mandatory in due course, following a consultation to better understand the landscape of the workforce, and to look at different qualifications and make it a better career.
We know that work on long-term workforce planning at a national level will need to be replicated at a local level. Subject to the passage of the Bill, ICBs should be the vehicle to support that. To guide that work, in August 2021 NHS England published draft guidance for ICBs explaining their central role, ensuring that the health and care system has the necessary workforce to meet the needs of the populations it serves. A copy of this guidance has been laid in the House Library. In addition, the amendments on ICBs’ forward plans and annual reports will require ICBs to report on how they exercise their duty to promote education and training for the current and future workforce.
Amendment 82 refers to safe staffing. The Government are committed to ensuring that we deliver safe patient care and that there are safe staffing levels across the NHS. Safe staffing should remain the responsibility of local clinical and other leaders, supported by guidance and regulated by the Care Quality Commission. The ultimate outcome of good-quality healthcare is influenced by a far greater range of issues than how many of each staff group are on a shift, even though that is clearly important, and it is why the Government are committed to continuing to grow the workforce.
I now turn to the amendment addressing GP distribution. We fully support the intention, particularly as part of our agenda to level up and recover from the pandemic. However, the pandemic’s impact on the workforce is not yet fully understood and the system is moving to meet the impact in new ways. As a result, a review of GP distribution is likely to be premature but, as noble Lords will recall, we have opened new medical schools in areas where there has been a lack of workforce, in the knowledge that many people stay in the areas where they were trained. That is part of our plan to make sure that there is more equitable distribution. We will also use the targeted enhanced recruitment scheme to incentivise trained doctors to work in hard-to-recruit areas.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, thank my noble friend very much. He has certainly gone as far as he can today; I am afraid it is not far enough. We have had informal conversations on this and I think it is no surprise to either of us that I was hoping for a great deal more. We have heard 17 speakers and the debate has taken around an hour and a quarter. It has been such an interesting debate—I always learn more in this Chamber, and I learned so much more today.
I want to thank the 17 speakers who have supported my amendment. As far as I can see, not a single one had any reservations about Amendment 80, because it is so simple. It is not groundbreaking; it simply wants a plan that people can recognise, and one that will fill the gaps in the workforce requirements according to demography and the needs of our population. The amendment is simple and clear, and it will make such a difference, not only to those working in the NHS but to the public, whom we are here to serve.
I thank all those who have taken part, particularly from my own Benches, and all the other noble Lords. I have to say, with some regret, that I have not heard anything that counters the arguments put forward. I was hoping that after Committee we might have found some common ground, but I sense that we have not. I am disappointed by that, so I seek to test the opinion of the House.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Regulations laid before the House on 28 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, these two statutory instruments were laid before the House on Monday 28 February 2022 under the powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, also known as the sanctions Act, and came into effect on 1 March.
We have announced the largest and most severe package of economic sanctions ever in response to Putin’s premeditated and barbaric invasion. Working with our allies, we will continue to ratchet up the pressure. We have already imposed sanctions on President Putin, Foreign Minister Lavrov, five Russian banks, 120 businesses and a long list of oligarchs. Taken together, they target assets worth hundreds of billions of pounds. Importantly, we have also worked with our allies on this issue, agreeing to remove selected Russian banks from SWIFT and to target the Russian central bank, but we will go further.
We continue to stand with the Ukrainian people in their heroic efforts to face up to unbridled aggression. As I have said on a number of occasions, and as has been said by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, nothing is off the table.
To update noble Lords on where we have got to on sanctions, overnight on 28 February we laid two new pieces of legislation on financial and trade measures. The first included a ban on Russian sovereign debt, a prohibition to limit access to sterling and a ban on any Russian company issuing securities or raising finance in the UK. These significantly strengthen our arsenal of sanctions against Russia. This is alongside increased trade measures, including a prohibition on sensitive dual-use items that could be used by the military and banning a further range of critical-industry goods, from high-tech to aircraft.
Sanctions announced by the United Kingdom and our allies are already having an important impact. Central bank interest rates have more than doubled, international businesses are quickly divesting, and the rouble is now trading at roughly a quarter of what it was when Mr Putin took power. That will impact the institutions that prop up Mr Putin and his cronies. We will continue to work with our allies to bring forward further sanctions and press for collective action to reduce western reliance on Russian energy. We will also continue to use every lever at our disposal to support the legitimate Government of Ukraine and, importantly, the Ukrainian people.
This legislation follows the “made affirmative” procedure set out in Section 55(3) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. These statutory instruments amend the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The powers in them will prevent Russian banks accessing sterling, which is a significant and new measure for the UK. Russian banks clear £146 billion of sterling payments through the UK financial system each year. Without the ability to make these payments in sterling, designated banks will not be able to pay for trade in sterling, invest in the United Kingdom or access UK financial markets. This matches the power the United States already has to prohibit access to the dollar, showing our joint resolve to remove Russia from the global financial and trade system. Around half of Russian trade is denominated in dollars and sterling. We have already used this power to designate Sberbank, the largest Russian bank.
The same statutory instrument prevents the Russian state raising debt here and isolates all Russian companies—of which there are over 3 million—from accessing UK capital markets. This measure goes further than those of our allies, banning all Russian companies from lucrative UK funding. Russian businesses listed in London have a combined market capitalisation of over £450 billion. This includes some of Russia’s largest state-owned enterprises, and the Kremlin is hugely reliant on their tax revenues. Banning them from raising debt in London will further increase the burden on the Russian state. Global giants such as Gazprom will no longer be able to issue debt or equity in London. In the last seven years, Russian companies have raised over $8 billion on the UK markets. We have put a stop to this.
The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2022 ban exports to Russia across a range of items, including the dual-use list and other goods and technology critical to Russia’s military-industrial complex and its maritime and aviation sectors. The SI also bans a range of technical and financial services related to such items. With this legislation, enacted in alignment with the United States, the European Union and other partners, we will collectively cut off Russia’s high-tech imports. This includes critical, high-end technological equipment such as microelectronics, telecoms, sensors and marine and navigation equipment. It will blunt Russia’s military-industrial and technological capabilities, gradually degrade Russia’s commercial air fleet, and act as a drag on Russia’s economy for years to come. The Department for International Trade and the Treasury will offer advice and guidance to UK businesses that are affected.
In conclusion, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is part of a long-term strategy. If we were to give ground now, Mr Putin’s strategy of aggression would never end. Instead, he would be emboldened, and his focus would simply move on to the next target. The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of this response. Importantly, we are acting in concert with our allies; collectively, our measures will deliver a devastating blow to Russia’s economy and military for years to come. The importance of co-ordinating with our partners will allow our sanctions to reverberate through Mr Putin’s regime.
We must remain firm and resolute in our response. We must rise to this moment and, importantly, continue to stand with Ukraine and its people. I am determined that we will continue to support them in that choice. I beg to move.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on what they have done so far, but does the Minister agree that this package has already been overtaken? It is already inadequate against the developing need. For example, the Germans have been able to impound the yacht belonging to Mr Usmanov in Hamburg, yet he still has access to his stately home in Guildford. How can that be?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on all his efforts and those of Ministers in his and in other departments in both places. However, there is a concern in the country that the inevitable delay in passing the legislation which came into effect on 1 March has perhaps meant that a number of assets have been able to be moved. Are the Government concerned about this?
Looking at SI No.194—I hope I have identified it correctly—I understand that provision will be made for medicines and humanitarian aid to reach Ukraine. I want to press my noble friend as to what routes will be used. There are reports that pharmacies in Ukraine are already facing a shortage of medicines. There will need to safe routes in.
We can only imagine the level of injuries and casualties that are having to be dealt with at this time. Is there any way in which some of the casualties can be evacuated to neighbouring countries? Is it the Government’s desire to send teams of medically qualified people out from the United Kingdom to assist with this humanitarian effort?
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on having gone further and faster than they had originally planned once the gravity of the situation became clear. Although this may be the largest ever package of sanctions from the UK, can the Minister explain to the House why there are so few individuals on our sanctions list compared with the EU’s? Why, in a particular spirit of generosity, are we allowing 18 months from when the legislation comes into effect for those who wish to sell their houses and get the proceeds out of the country to do so?
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness’s last remark. I was on the Joint Committee on the Draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill, which sat in 2019. Clearly, 18 months is far too long if Clause 3 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill is to have any immediate effect.
Is there any possibility of having a look at the enemy aliens Act of 1914? Of course, this is not an exact parallel, but there may be suitable provisions within that old legislation, which was renewed in 1919 after the end of the First World War. Could my noble friend’s officials perhaps look at this legislation to see if there are any useful provisions which could be modernised and brought forward to be of value nowadays—accepting that the United Kingdom is not “at war” with Russia?
While the measures which my noble friend has just announced are hugely valuable, there are three groups of people on whom we need to apply pressure, given that the Ukrainians are actuarily unlikely to win a fighting war, brave as they are and incredible as their resistance has been so far.
First, when the ordinary Russian public are queuing for bread in Moscow because the Russian economy has collapsed, they will begin to wonder why and they will begin to ask why Russian state television and other state-controlled media operations have been less than candid about why the Russian army has gone into Ukraine, its level of success and the number of their children who have been killed. I understand that the Russian army moves, when it can, not just with armoured vehicles, artillery and infantry but with mobile crematoriums, so that the soldiers who are killed are immediately disposed of and the Russian public do not get to know about the huge numbers who have been killed.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and the Government on the tough regime of sanctions that has been introduced this week, and I agree with every word of the previous speech.
This is an extraordinary time. Civilians are being bombed and war crimes are being committed, and extraordinary times require special and extraordinary responses. Ministers are completely right to say that one of the ways to isolate a weakened Putin and to put him under pressure is to target him and his supporters and the money they have stolen from the impoverished people of Russia. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we should sanction Russian government Ministers, senior officials, Putin’s inner circle, the oligarchs who look after his funds, members of the parliament and senior members of the security services and armed forces.
We in this country have a particular responsibility, because so much of the money looted from the people of Russia has been spent and invested here in London. The way to identify the funds, the properties that such people have bought and the businesses they have invested in is to target those who enable them to spend and invest these funds. Just as accountants are required to report clients they suspect of tax evasion, so other businesses and professionals should be required to report people they suspect of benefiting from Putin’s regime. We should make it a legal requirement for lawyers, accountants, company formation agencies, financial services firms, investment companies and estate agents to report on the structures and holdings set up to allow sanctioned individuals to hold assets in this country. Surely, this would make the whole sanctions process swifter, simpler and more straightforward. Will the Minister look at including measures such as this in the sanctions Bill being brought forward in the next few days?
Secondly, is it true, as Politico reported this morning, that during the rollover of EU sanctions rules into British law during the Brexit process, the UK sanctions regime became significantly more procedurally complex because the new laws were amended to ensure procedural fairness for those being sanctioned, to strengthen measures those sanctions could take in response, and to ensure that sanctions were imposed in what was described at the time as a “proportionate manner”? If it is the case that these changes made the imposition of sanctions more complicated and difficult here in the UK than in the EU or the US, should we not use the legislation that the Minister is bringing forward to unravel these changes so that we can speed these processes up?
Thirdly, is it also the case, as reported in this morning’s Times, that the Government are finding it difficult—despite the work the Minister is doing, which I applaud, and the work of his officials, who I know are working flat out on this—to impose sanctions swiftly because of a shortage of lawyers and officials able to carry out the work? If so, what plans do Ministers have to recruit more people urgently to do this?
Finally, what happens to funds and property and other assets that are frozen or seized from people in this process? I suggest that they be held in trust to support the future democratic Government of a free Ukraine, to rebuild their economy.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I raise again with the Government the issue of cryptocurrencies. Effectively, Russians cannot now transfer roubles into dollars, euros and pounds sterling but they can transfer into cryptocurrency. The Minister will know that the Ukrainian Minister of Finance on Monday called on all the decentralised finance—the DeFi exchanges—to remove Russia from their schemes. Some, such as Coinbase, have done so, but others—Binance is the big one that comes to mind—have decided to sanction only the 100 names on the sanctions list and otherwise to allow free translation of roubles into cryptocurrency. We have heard from the Ukrainian Government that this is a serious mechanism for evading sanctions. Binance, which I mentioned, is registered in the Cayman Islands and therefore falls into the UK financial family. What more will the Minister do to prevent what may have looked like a loophole from becoming what is now growing into—a major escape hole?
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, these are dark days. I am delighted to follow and identify with the initial remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Austin. Our hearts are with the brave people of Ukraine. The Russian people will suffer long-term hardship but nothing compared to that befalling the extraordinary people of Ukraine.
It is no fault of the Russian people that they have no understanding of the reality of why they are being fully penalised. It is quite astounding that, from my calls to Russia, their perception of what is going on in Ukraine borders, frankly, on the fanciful. Disinformation is rife. These measures are very necessary and the UK Government are doing exactly what they have to do. They have my full support.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I fully support these sanctions and I congratulate the Government on the packages brought forward. I look forward with interest to the replies to be given to several of the detailed points raised about exactly how firmly they will be enforced.
I will look forward a little. The medium to long-term reality is that we are applying these sanctions against Russia, but Russia is almost certain in the end to achieve some degree of military success. A new reality will dawn, probably with a puppet Government in Ukraine, and the whole issue will start fading from international debate, from the media and so on. What are the Government’s plans for the medium term and, if necessary, the longer-term future in sustaining these sanctions and this level of pressure on the Russian regime?
In reality, there will be quite rapidly a tendency to put pressure on the Government to allow people to return to a new normality: to allow Russian companies to have access to the City of London again and to ease sanctions causing financial losses to lawyers, accountants and firms here. Is the Minister able to assure me that, as far as the British Government are concerned, we intend to retain this degree of sanctions until some satisfactory solution to the political problem is achieved, with a genuine agreement with a respectable Ukrainian Government who have proper regard to international law and national sovereignty? Will the British Government remain one of the more robust in the western lands? There will be considerable pressure to stop doing so much once we have, as it were, done our best to protect the Ukrainian regime during the conflict.
The sooner we start addressing that problem, the sooner we will start facing up to realistic problems that we must plan for. The Russians will undoubtedly, for example, try to ensure that the sanctions do quite a bit of damage to western economies, and will start trying to use their influence on the oil and energy markets to demonstrate that they can cause us some continuing loss unless we begin to lose interest—shall we say?—in the crisis that has so shocked the world. Are we determined to be one of those western countries that will seek to maintain the fullest force of sanctions we can unless and until a satisfactory solution is reached with the Russian regime?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, who has just given the Government some wise advice which I hope the Minister will carry back to his colleagues.
We welcome the sanctions and look forward to the arrival of the economic crime Bill when it comes from the Commons the week after next. That has flushed out quite a lot of advice and some very strong comments from people who have been looking at the area of economic crime and kleptocracy in this country. One of the threads coming through, which goes back to the issue of what we can do now to stem that flight of capital, is that we are not fully using the anti-money laundering laws that we already have on statute in order to do that now. Will the Minister agree that more can be done with current legislation, which can be used to help stem the flow of money stolen from the people of Russia? Does he undertake to redouble efforts with all the bodies that have the power to use these anti-money laundering laws to get on and do it?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I welcome these measures on behalf of these Benches and I thank the Minister for maintaining contact and giving advance notice.
These are both the culmination of weeks of lobbying from Parliament to have sight of further measures but also, as noted in this short debate—including by the Minister—the start of a process. They are of a differing character, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, indicated. Perhaps these are now of a more strategic nature which will be medium and long term, and perhaps they will have a different characteristic from the sanctions regime that we have put in place, which is different from what the EU scheme envisaged.
The noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley, rightly raised a number of weeks ago with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in the Home Office, why, as my noble friend Lord Fox indicated, we had not been using existing legislation. It has been highlighted for a number of months that the weak point in the global efforts against money laundering and kleptocracy is in fact the UK. Therefore, questions such as that of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, are quite right. There is a niggling fear that the UK is still behind the US and the EU in making sure that there is, as the Foreign Secretary said a number of weeks ago, no place to hide for kleptocrats. However, as we have seen, because the Government have now, due to persuasion from Parliament, brought forward the first of the economic crime Bills, there have been, regrettably, plenty of places to hide.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too fully welcome the introduction of these sanctions. The Government will have our full support in holding Putin and his acolytes to account. I believe—and I said this earlier to the noble Lord—that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, is right; these sanctions are about not only how effective they will be, but how sustainable they will be. We need to focus on their sustainability as much as their effectiveness.
I reiterate the promise of the shadow Minister for Europe, my honourable friend Stephen Doughty, that we will work with the Government at speed to pass any necessary legislation to this effect. Russia’s invasion is an act of barbarism which requires a united response from all who value the principles of sovereignty and democracy, which must include measures to exclude it from the benefits of the global financial system.
Reflecting all contributions from noble Lords today, our only ask is that the Government go further and faster. I said this morning in Oral Questions that one of the problems with the strategy of ratcheting up is that there is an element of forewarning, which obviously has an effect. In the areas of asset freezing of Russian banks and oligarchs, there is a serious risk of asset flight. The noble Lord, Lord McDonald, mentioned this point very effectively. I asked the Minister this morning whether there has been any preliminary assessment of whether this has already happened. That is one of the things in terms of preparation. Like other noble Lords, we welcome the new legislation to set up a register of overseas entities holding UK property, but the decision, as noble Lords have pointed out, to delay its introduction for 18 months clearly allows oligarchs to escape sanctions.
I also mentioned to the Minister earlier that Labour’s Front Bench on the legislation in the House of Commons has tabled measures to require the new register to come into force within 28 days of the legislation passing. I hope that the Government accept this amendment. It is important that we remain united, as I have said before, as a Parliament and a country.
The steps taken to cut Russia out of the western economic system are particularly welcome, and the efforts on SWIFT and the Government’s push to get a global response to that has been really important. It has been well known that Russia has been developing alternatives to SWIFT since calls first emerged for Russia’s exclusion during the invasion of Crimea. I hope that the Minister can update the House on what assessment the Government have made of Russia’s potential for developing an alternative, again picking up a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, about the sustainability of our actions.
Given that not all Russian banks are currently included, the Government are right to call for an expansion. Has the FCDO had any recent high-level conversations about that? The Government should also consider how they can widen the number of banks that are prevented from accessing sterling and expand sectoral sanctions. The Minister mentioned those, but we should even be thinking of the insurance market. There are other areas and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, was right to focus on the interest groups that may have the most influence on Putin and his acolytes. I agree with the points he made. One not insignificant idea on export controls is to look at the luxury goods going into Russia. We know that cars are included, but there is a whole other range. That visibility could address the point made by the noble and learned Lord about soft power and how we raise awareness in Russian people’s minds about the impact of their Government’s action.
The designation of further individuals was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, and the point was raised on Radio 4’s “Today” programme. The Prime Minister suggested that more than 100 further persons could now be sanctioned. It is clearly now possible that those with links to the Kremlin will use that as a warning to sell their assets. We have seen that the Chelsea owner, Roman Abramovich, is seeking to offload the club, with a price tag believed to be £3 billion. His multimillion-pound residential properties are also up for sale. He says that proceeds will be donated to good causes, but the truth is that we will never know where that money will ultimately end up. Does the Minister believe that Mr Abramovich’s actions have been driven, at least in part, by the Prime Minister’s incorrect assertion that he was on the UK sanctions list? Do the Government agree that any form of pre-notification, or indeed inclusion of grace periods for certain banks, severely undermines the effectiveness of sanctions? I have heard the Minister repeatedly say in the Chamber in the past that he will not indicate or respond about future designations because it does precisely that.
We need to return to the point about how fast we designate people. When the Government extend their designations—I hope that will be soon—I hope that they will allow parliamentarians to suggest further targets. We had this debate about the mechanisms for informing the Government and the FCDO about possible targets when we debated the sanctions Bill. That intelligence may go beyond normal intelligence service facilities, but we should be open to those sorts of suggestions.
Finally, we must all remember that Russia is supported by Belarus and treat Lukashenko’s regime as belligerent. The sanctions announced against individuals in Belarus are a step in the right direction, but we should consider other options for deterring their involvement. Do the Government plan to match the measures announced by the EU for banning machinery exports to Belarus? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, said, it is misguided to think that we have time on our side. For as long as the Kremlin continues this campaign of violence, we must hold to account all those who enable it. We welcome these sanctions but look forward to further measures being brought forward on a speedy basis.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their strong support for the sanctions more broadly and specifically for the measures that we are debating today. I say from the outset that I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Existing laws and processes should be fully leveraged to ensure that those actions that have been taken can be fully applied rather than our just waiting for new legislation to pass. The noble Lord, Lord Austin, and others, pointed to the importance of resourcing. I assure him that it is at the forefront of our thinking, both in the context of the FCDO and across government, including the Home Office.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed on the specific sanctions before us, but as I expected—it is no surprise to anyone—our discussion this afternoon has gone much wider. I am sure that will be reflective of the upcoming debates both on the legislation and on specific issues relating to the unravelling of the situation in Ukraine.
The noble Lord, Lord McDonald—I nearly said “noble friend”; he was certainly a friend when he was a PUS—will know all too well that I cannot comment on specific designations. Nevertheless, I hear what he says. In this regard, I assure him and all in your Lordships’ House that we are aligning ourselves. Where there are designations which are reflective of partners who may have moved forward more quickly or broadly, we are working closely with them. Questions are often asked about our alignment particularly with the EU. Noble Lords may be aware that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been invited, along with representatives of the United States, to attend the European Union Foreign Affairs Council to ensure that we are fully aligned in how we move forward, both in the governance structures and in the specific designations. That underlines the challenge that we face but also, importantly, the collaboration and collective response from the Government of the United Kingdom and Governments of key partners, including those within the European Union. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is visiting key partners today as I speak.
The measures that we have taken are already having a significant impact, but I assure noble Lords that I have listened carefully to and made note of their suggestions as to what more we can do in consultation with our allies. As we debate legislation which enables what action we can take, further announcements will be made. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about Belarus. We will debate the specific application of those sanctions in the coming days. We will introduce further sanctions and prohibitions on financial services relating to foreign reserves exchange and asset management by the Russian central bank. These too will be before us in the coming days.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh rightly talked about ensuring humanitarian carve-outs from our sanctions. From our experience in Afghanistan, I have been very minded to ensure that this is part and parcel not just of our thinking but of our processes. My engagement earlier this week in Geneva with key partners working on the ground, including the various agencies of the UN but also the likes of the ICRC, was focused on the very issue that she highlighted.
The United Kingdom has also said that we will work with our allies in NATO. On Friday, NATO leaders reiterated their commitment to Article 5 in solidarity and support for Ukraine, which many noble Lords mentioned. We will also provide further humanitarian support, which has been announced by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The UK has also announced £100 million of new funding to aid efforts to build Ukraine’s resilience and reduce reliance on Russian energy supplies. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Austin, about particular assets held and how they are best utilised. Past conflicts have also demonstrated the legal challenges that apply, depending on who owns what assets and the legitimacy of the Government of a given country to have a right to those assets. We can talk of conflicts past, on which we are still trying to unravel some of those issues. I am sure that noble Lords welcome the additional £100 million of new funding from the United Kingdom to build Ukraine’s resilience and reduce reliance on other areas, including energy and security.
My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier rightly highlighted the different groups. Again, that is very much part and parcel of our thinking on how we can target further work and co-ordination with our key partners. I am also minded very much to agree with him on the important issue of Russian disinformation. The Russian Government are conducting an aggressive set of information operations against Ukraine and NATO in a shameful attempt to justify action against Ukraine. I have to say to my noble and learned friend that I think we all take encouragement that the protests against Russia’s actions are not limited to countries outside Russia. We have certainly seen disgraceful scenes today of protests being again put down in St Petersburg by Russian military and security forces, but they show that the Russian people totally despise the actions being taken by President Putin, and we will work to see how we can strengthen our influence through soft power.
Whoever we target under designation criteria will remain subject to a test of appropriateness, as set out under the sanctions Act. I have made this point before: our values and our system acknowledges that we have a robust legal framework to our sanctions, and we will need to consider carefully how sanctioning individuals helps to achieve the purposes of the regime. The whole essence—and I say this as the UK’s Human Rights Minister—is very important to me in the fairness that we apply when we look at such issues. However, equally, we are very much committed as a champion of freedom and democracy to tackle corruption and illicit finance that directly undermine security and democracy. The UK will use our autonomous sanctions and other tools to send the clearest possible message that the UK is not a safe haven for illicit wealth or financial flows, including those from Russia.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, rightly raised the issue of cryptocurrencies, which are not so specific to the current instrument, but crypto-assets are economic resources and are therefore covered by the UK’s financial sanctions. I believe that with the economic crime Bill and other measures that will be taken there will be broader discussions about that issue. The noble Baroness is totally right that where we identify the so-called loopholes that have been used creatively, to put it that way, by those seeking to avoid particular rules, regulations and sanctions, we need to close them down as quickly as possible, but in conjunction with our partners and allies.
My noble friend Lady Wheatcroft raised the issue of property. My understanding is that properties subject to asset freezes are not directly seized, but they cannot be sold and employees cannot work in those properties. She raised the issue of the 18-month figure, which I think is very much within the provisions of the economic crime Bill that has been introduced. If I may, I shall write detailing the specifics. There are qualifications within that, but she is right to raise the issue. As I say, I am sure that it will come up in the debates we have on the Bill.
My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier also raised the issue of EU comparisons. As I have already said, we are working together closely. Where we are perhaps ahead or behind any of our key partners we are looking to align as quickly as possible on specific steps that we are taking.
On the issue raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke, he may not remember, but I remember as a much younger man listening to one of his speeches in a think tank. We were discussing Iraq at that time. My noble and learned friend articulated very clearly—and his views have come to pass—that an intervention in Iraq would not resolve the conflict, as some of it was embedded in religious differences based on 1,500 years of different perspectives. I agree with him that this is about the long haul. I assure my noble and learned friend that we are absolutely determined that the actions we are taking today will remain robust. The United Kingdom has been playing a leading role in ensuring that as we work with our international partners, particularly those in the European Union, we recognise their challenges and where there are issues, for example with Germany and energy, we make the case powerfully and constructively while recognising that we need to move together.
I say to my noble and learned friend that it will not just be about the resolve of the United Kingdom. This resolve will need to be reflected within the wider international community to ensure we are fully aligned. That is why, in terms of our ministerial engagement, we are speaking extensively with our key partners, not just on a daily basis but on an hourly one. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, other Ministers and I are travelling quite extensively. We are taking action, as was shown by the United Nations vote yesterday. We are working with the US, the EU, the G7 and the OSCE. It is good to see how we are working with other key partners and perhaps even with those partners or other countries where we do not see eye to eye and with countries where we have big differences, including China. The fact that China abstained not once but twice—once at the Security Council and then yesterday at the General Assembly—shows that diplomacy and diplomatic efforts are also vital in our response.
I have sought to cover the specifics—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
With regard to China and the position of the UK, as the Minister will know, the UK is a global hub, not only for oil trading but also for shipping and for insurance of that global shipping. Especially with Russia and China, insurance—I think the noble Lord, Lord Collins, referenced insurance, but I did not pick up what the Minister had said about that—for shipping is one of the key elements in doing real harm to the Russian oil and gas sector. A lot of it is brokered through London. Can the Government please outline what they intend to do about this sector?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the specifics of shipping—the noble Lord had also raised wider issues such as bullion—are very much part of our thinking. On shipping specifically, the noble Lord will know that we have already taken the lead. My right honourable friend the Transport Secretary introduced certain measures that restrict the movement of Russian vessels and their landing in UK ports. The noble Lord is right to raise the broader issue of insurance and the hub and the role that the United Kingdom plays. We will be taking further measures in this respect and the details of them will follow.
As I have said throughout this whole process, as these measures are coming in, it is a very fluid situation. We are working as quickly as we can. There is the legislation in front of us that we are approving today—I hope that will be the case—and other measures already under way, some announced and some not. I do not want to pre-empt them. However, the noble Lord is quite right to raise the shipping sector. I hope that the steps specific to that sector that we have already taken indicate the Government’s route in terms of our intention to work further to limit, as the noble Lord says, the effectiveness of Russian activity in that sector.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Regulations laid before the House on 28 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Health and Care Bill
Thursday 3rd March 2022
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 View all Health and Care Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 114-III Third marshalled list for Report - (3 Mar 2022)
16:33 - Division on Amendment 84 - Ayes: 145 / Noes: 122 - Amendment 84 agreed.
18:27 - Division on Amendment 108 - Ayes: 110 / Noes: 91 - Amendment 108 agreed.
18:53 - Division on Amendment 112 - Ayes: 80 / Noes: 91 - Amendment 112 disagreed.
Lord Lansley
“(4) A direction under section 13ZC may not be given in relation to a decision about the relative allocation of resources to integrated care boards.(5) A direction under section 13ZC may not be given in relation to a decision about the results of a procurement of goods or services provided for the purposes of the NHS in England.”
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will recall from Committee some substantial discussion about whether it was wise for the Secretary of State to take additional powers of direction in relation to NHS England. I suppose I should declare an interest since I gave the NHS commissioning board, or NHS England, the freedoms it currently enjoys. I am probably the person least likely to be persuaded that it is a very good idea to take all that away. After our debate in Committee, I thought it was probably sensible, rather than to seek to remove the powers of direction that the Secretary of State is given under Clause 39, to look at the exceptions to that power in new Section 13ZD and ask: are these all the exceptions that we should have?
On Amendment 83, the conclusion I reached was that there were at least two specific areas which are not mentioned in new Section 13ZD but should be; namely, limitations on the use of this power on the part of the Secretary of State. First, the local allocation of resources to integrated care boards—and the difficult decisions of trying to remedy the inequalities in access to healthcare services through the resource allocation process—is not something which any of us want the Secretary of State to interfere with; otherwise, it is sure to be regarded as being done for a political purpose, even if it might be done for another.
Secondly, there is the question of
“procurement of goods or services”.
After all the experience we have had over recent months, the last thing any of us wants is to go too far in the direction of the Secretary of State having a power in relation to procurement when that can perfectly well be given as a responsibility to NHS England. This is Amendment 83, and I hope that my noble friend, if he cannot accept the amendments, will give us some specific assurances in relation to the Secretary of State not using those powers.
In this group, I also put my name to Amendment 84, which would remove Clause 40—and, by extension, Schedule 6—from the Bill. This is about the Secretary of State coming in and acquiring more powers than was formerly the case. I was shadow Secretary of State for six years or so. During that time, I would have loved it if the then Secretary of State had all these powers to intervene in every reconfiguration, because I went around the country—as people are fond of reminding me—mobilising opposition to some of the ways in which the health service, led by the then Government, was trying to reconfigure services. This is not something that the Secretary of State or the current Government should wish for themselves or for their successors in office. I will not go back into all the arguments, but there are plenty of good examples of where, if the Secretary of State had this power, people would press the Secretary of State to use it—and it would be deeply unwise for a Secretary of State to get involved.
The justification on the part of the Government is that it stops this going on for ever. But there is a reason that these things go on for a long time—because they are intensely difficult, and the balances are very difficult to strike. Sometimes, the processes of consultation and public engagement take a long time. If the Government’s argument is that they are going leap in, intervene and settle it all quickly, both sides will yell when they do that. We can be absolutely certain of this. No one will be happy, and everyone will blame the Secretary of State. This is very firmly in the “be careful what you wish for” category. We would do the Government a great service by deleting Clause 40 from the Bill. If the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pursues that, I will certainly support her. I beg to move Amendment 83.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
With the leave of the House, I thought it might be useful if I used my slot to speak right now on leaving out Clause 40. First, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for putting their names to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Patel—with whom I spoke this morning, and who is definitely on the mend, so I hope we will see him next week—said how strongly he supports the amendment. I will speak very briefly because we have already said much of what needs to be said about saving the Secretary of State from himself—as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, I think. This is what this amendment is about.
Clearly, this is not what the NHS asked for in the Bill. It did not ask for this power. It has been added to the Bill—by a previous Secretary of State, I suspect—and I hear rumours that even the current Secretary of State is not a great fan. Why would any Secretary of State want to have this power—to be lobbied and drawn into any minor local dispute, particularly as we head towards a general election?
I have a small anecdote. A small coastal town had a small hospital with an accident and emergency department. It could not be properly staffed, it regularly closed for random periods, and far too often patients arrived there only to be moved to the larger A&E 20 miles down the road. Proposals were made to close it—and of course, outrage ensued. “Save our A&E”, people said, even though it was unsafe. Local politics were poisonous, and the blame for the closure was thrown on opponents, whichever side they were on.
However, over time, good communications, clinical leadership and, eventually, bringing local people into the team, got the proposal moving. People understood what was needed and why, and the reconfiguration process went through its stages, with external reviews and analysis by the national clinical advisory team, which all gave reassurance. The clincher came when a distinguished clinician leading the review told a meeting that he would personally go and paint over the road signs for the A&E, because it was so unsuitable. It shut, which probably means that lives were saved.
The process of rational argument and proper analysis works, and on this occasion we should not just leave it to local politics to decide what reconfiguration means. The Secretary of State has enough powers to direct the whole NHS in its fullness, but should not be involved in what may be very small reconfigurations indeed. We agree, and many people in the NHS and its organisations agree, that this clause should be removed from the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have no doubt that when the Minister responds he will say that the Secretary of State is likely to use this power very rarely. The point is that the moment the health service knows the Secretary of State has such a power, that will immediately influence its behaviour in relation to any improvements or major changes of services likely to lead to opposition from the local Member of Parliament. I think that the Minister is responsible for innovation in the health service, and this will put the kibosh on innovation and service changes.
Written on my heart is Kidderminster General Hospital. The Minister may not recall this, because it is a long time ago now, but Worcestershire Health Authority made proposals to reconfigure A&E services and close Kidderminster General Hospital. The then Member of Parliament, David Lock, who was a loyal member of the Government, bravely defended that decision. He lost his seat in 2001, and it has been written on the hearts of many MPs since then that they do not defend that type of change, because they might lose their seats.
I cannot believe that the Government wish to give the Secretary of State the nightmare of that kind of lobbying—I am trying to tempt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, to intervene here, because he knows what MPs do. What we have at the moment is a very good system, at arm’s length, and it beats me why on earth the Government want to do this. We need to do the business and get rid of the clause. I suspect that we shall not see it back again.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 84 is intended to remove the powers of the Secretary of State, in Clause 40, to intervene in decisions on reconfigurations of health services. I said in Committee, and I say again, that those powers are very dangerous. We have recently seen how the Government’s powers to provide or withdraw funding for a proposal to, say, build a new school or improve infrastructure in a particular constituency have got them into trouble. Political considerations have trumped public interest. In the media they call that pork barrel politics—not a very complimentary phrase, I am afraid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for bringing this debate to the House today. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be grateful for the desire to save him from himself and his powers. Let me read out the following quote:
“If we went out to Parliament Square now and straw-polled people walking by, asking them who they thought was responsible for the NHS in England at a national level, I think we would wait a very long time before anyone gave any answer other than the Government and, by extension, the Secretary of State”.—[Official Report, Commons, Health and Care Bill Committee, 21/9/21; col. 393.]
These are not my words, but those of the Opposition spokesman during Committee in the other place.
One of the core pillars of the Bill is to ensure appropriate accountability for the NHS. This is of the utmost importance as we invest further in local service decision-making and delivery. It is critical that, in line with the aims of the Bill to empower local systems, the Secretary of State has the appropriate levers to meet the public expectation for ministerial accountability.
There has been some confusion about what the powers in the Bill will do, and if noble Lords will allow me, I will spend a moment on this to add clarity. Clause 39 will simply allow the Secretary of State to direct NHS England—and only NHS England—on matters where it already has functions. This is not a power over local bodies. Clause 40 and Schedule 6 will allow the Secretary of State to call in and decide on reconfiguration decisions. They do not remove any of the existing safeguards, including the requirement to consult or the role of the Independent Reconfigurations Panel in providing advice to the Secretary of State.
I understand the arguments put forward in Amendment 83, and I will take procurement first. We agree that it is inappropriate for the Secretary of State to be involved in individual procurement decisions. That is not the motive behind this power, and it is not the way it would be used. The regulation-making power inserted by Clause 70 prevents the Secretary of State being able to use this direction-making power to direct NHS England—
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
The Minister said that this was not the motive behind the power, but motive is not the point here. I am sure that the Secretary of State has the best of motives, as does the Minister, but the point is the effect of what the Bill says.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for clarifying that. Of course, we completely understand the concerns that have been raised. The Secretary of State must use regulation-making powers where they exist, rather than using the power of direction to achieve what could be achieved under regulations.
Turning to the allocation of resources to the ICBs, the Government have no ambition to use this power to interfere with individual allocations of money to the system. It will not be used to interfere with the independent Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. NHS England will continue to make funding allocations to ICBs to support them to deliver functions via the target formula, in order to reduce inequalities between patients. We have attached safeguards to this power to make sure it is not misused. Any exercise of this power must be done transparently: it must be made in writing, be published and be made in the public interest. This will enable Parliament to challenge Ministers and hold them to account.
Turning to Amendment 84, Clause 40 and Schedule 6 will allow the Secretary of State to better support effective change and respond to stakeholder concerns, including views from the public, health oversight and scrutiny committees and parliamentarians, in a more timely way. The clause and schedule will ensure that key decisions made about how services are delivered are subject to democratic oversight.
It is a misapprehension that the Secretary of State currently has no role in the decision-making process for reconfigurations. He does and without these provisions that role will continue. However, currently, referrals usually come at a very late stage in the process, which represents neither good value for the taxpayer nor good outcomes for patients.
I understand the concerns from noble Lords, including former Ministers, about how these powers might be used. But I have been asked to make clear that we expect the vast majority of reconfiguration decisions to continue to be managed by the local system—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt, but does the Minister not take my point that it is not that Ministers will have to use those powers; it is that they have powers that will change behaviour immediately in the health service? That is the issue.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Before the Minister answers that question, I wonder if he would be kind enough to answer two from me. He just gave a list of what the powers will not be used for, but could he tell us what sort of thing the powers will be used for and under what circumstances? Can he also say why previous Secretaries of State—some of whom are not very far from where I am standing now—did not feel the need for those powers and still felt themselves accountable for the health service?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank noble Lords for those interventions. If they will allow me, I will come to answer them in my remarks.
We understand the concerns about how these powers will be used. It is in the interests of nobody, least of all the Secretary of State, to be making every decision in the system, and stakeholders will be encouraged to continue to resolve matters locally where possible. Duties for those responsible for reconfigurations to involve patients and consult the local authority will continue. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State is ultimately accountable for all changes to the health service. Therefore, it is entirely consistent with democratic principles that he or she should have the ability to intervene where it is deemed to be in the interests of the public.
We recognise that, in exercising these powers in this clause and schedule, it will be vital that the Secretary of State receives expert and clinical advice. That is why the Independent Reconfiguration Panel will continue to provide independent advice to the Secretary of State, allowing them to benefit from its many years of experience. This will mean that the Secretary of State will have independent advice that will include the views of both overview and scrutiny committees and patients, and the clinical case for change—
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
I thank my noble friend. On this clinical advice, he is aware of the enormous changes that were made to stroke services in London. In the reconfiguration that took place, many lives were saved. But when it came to east Kent, the reconfiguration request, which was to do with stroke services, sat on the Secretary of State’s desk for two years. I just wonder how many people died for that delay.
When I put forward an amendment in Committee, I said that a decision must be made within three months by the Secretary of State if it is before his view, on his desk. Delay costs lives. It is absolutely critical that decisions are made fast in these reconfigurations, because we will lose lives.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Indeed, sometimes it is absolutely critical that decisions are made quickly. Where there are concerns about the speed of those decisions, the Secretary of State may ultimately decide to intervene, subject to advice from the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, overview and scrutiny committees, and patients, and based on the clinical case, should he or she decide to exercise powers under this clause.
I understand the concerns raised in this House and have heard the arguments presented today and in Committee. However, I think it would help if I reminded noble Lords that the Secretary of State’s powers included in the Bill are to ensure accountability. The public rightly want to hold the Government to account for the health service, and these powers allow that to happen effectively. The other place acknowledged that approach and supported it—
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I cannot believe that the Minister meant to imply that all the structures being set up in this Bill are not accountable, because there are a whole lot of accountability measures in this Bill which will hold to account the people making these decisions without the Secretary of State. One might think from what he just said that the powers are very narrow.
But I draw his attention to page 206 of the Bill. In proposed new Section 68A(4)(3)(a), it just says that the Secretary of State can decide whether a proposal goes through or not, but in proposed new Section 68A(4)(3)(b) it says that the Secretary of State can intervene in the “particular results” that have to be achieved. In proposed new Section 68A(4)(3)(c) he can decide the procedure and other steps that should be taken in relation to the proposal. In proposed new Section 68A(4)(3)(d) there is the
“power to retake any decision previously taken by the NHS commissioning body”.
These seem to be very broad powers; they are not just small intervention powers by the Secretary of State.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness raises some important points, but I remind her that, alongside those, she should consider safeguards and limitations that are being put in place to address these concerns and the importance of ensuring due accountability for health service delivery. I understand the strong feeling among noble Lords and have tried to go as far as I can in addressing those concerns. I once again, perhaps in vain, ask noble Lords to think about the assurances that have been given and not to move their amendments when they are reached.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. In particular I am grateful for his specific assurances on the powers of procurement and the question of resource allocation. We can be pretty confident that the Secretary of State would not interfere with the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation or the NHS England response to it. If the Secretary of State were to start messing with the formula, we would get into a very difficult place.
I am still of the view that there was a very good reason we gave NHS England greater freedoms. I think it would not have been possible for NHS England to have published its Five Year Forward View in 2014 or even more so the Long Term Plan in 2019, in circumstances where it had occupied the same relationship with the Secretary of State as it did in the past.
This is taking NHS England from its current degree of independence to something that it was not in the past, but is a little more ambiguous. It will be difficult, for precisely the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, explained, for the NHS to feel that, when the successor to the long-term plan is published by the successor to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, it is the NHS’s own plan. That has been very important; Ministers have said it a thousand times. Why do we not let that happen? The measures in Clause 39 take a real risk of infringing on the idea that it is the NHS’s own plan.
It does not mean that the Secretary of State is not accountable, but that they are accountable in ways that they can legitimately control: the resource allocation and an expectation of the priorities and outcomes. That is where the Secretary of State should be putting the weight of the Government, not in trying to decide how outcomes in the NHS are best achieved. I do not agree in principle with what is proposed in Clause 39, but I am not going to press that point.
I will, however, if the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pushes it, support her on Clause 40. I say to my noble friend: look at Schedule 6. The structure of it does not even mention the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. As soon as there is a proposal for a reconfiguration from any of the NHS bodies, it quite clearly places in the hands of the Secretary of State the responsibility to decide whether to go ahead with it or not. That will be exactly the moment when the Secretary of State is drawn in and is not able to be extricated from it.
My noble friend has simply to look at the example of the reconfiguration of congenital paediatric cardiac services to realise that no sensible Minister would have been drawn into that debate at an early stage with any confidence of being able to make a decision that would have been accepted by any of the parties to that debate.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
The noble Lord raises the congenital paediatric cardiac case, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, raised the Kent stroke question. On that question, the estimate was that 40 to 50 people will have died or lost their ability to live independently as a result of that two-year delay. Is it not the case that, for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just set out, those kinds of delays will now be invisible to the naked eye because these proposals will never get off the ground due to the self-censoring of necessary clinical change that would save lives, precisely as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath described?
Lord Lansley (Con)
We all know that when these proposals come forward, there is a lot of local pressure. In many cases, it will be local pressure that is transmitted to the Secretary of State by Members of Parliament who are—
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, it might be worth reminding noble Lords that on Report, noble Lords only speak twice for short questions of elucidation.
Lord Lansley (Con)
The noble Lord was elucidating something to which I was responding. That is my view. Anyway, I was not planning to go on at any length. My point is very straightforward. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, that will be transmitted to the Secretary of State at an early stage, before the point where the Secretary of State can, in any practical way, distance himself or herself from the decision by giving it to the independent reconfiguration panel. There is a process out there. I am a Conservative, and we do not change things that are not broken. This is not yet broken. It is a system that has been used tolerably well and we should stick with it, so I support leaving out Clause 40. However, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 83.
Lord Kamall
(a) the reference”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on another amendment which provides that references in new section 26A of the NHS Act 2006 to effects of a decision in relation to certain matters include its effects in relation to inequalities with respect to those matters.
“(b) the reference to effects of a decision in relation to the health and well-being of the people of England includes a reference to its effects in relation to inequalities between the people of England with respect to their health and well-being;(c) the reference to effects of a decision in relation to the quality of services provided to individuals includes a reference to its effects in relation to inequalities between individuals with respect to the benefits that they can obtain from those services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that references in new section 26A of the NHS Act 2006 to effects of a decision in relation to certain matters include its effects in relation to inequalities with respect to those matters.
“NHS trusts: duties in relation to climate change
After section 26A of the National Health Service Act 2006 (inserted by section 45 of this Act) insert—“26B Duties in relation to climate change etc(1) An NHS trust established under section 25 must, in the exercise of its functions, have regard to the need to—(a) contribute towards compliance with— (i) section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (UK net zero emissions target), and(ii) section 5 of the Environment Act 2021 (environmental targets), and(b) adapt to any current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008.(2) In discharging the duty under this section, NHS trusts must have regard to guidance published by NHS England under section 13ND.””Member’s explanatory statement
The new Clause would require NHS trusts, in exercising their functions, to have regard to certain matters relating to the environment, including climate change.
Lord Kamall
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that any order imposing a limit on the capital expenditure of an NHS foundation trust may only relate to a single financial year (rather than spanning more than one financial year).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment requiring an order under new section 42B(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006 to relate to a single financial year.
“(4A) An order under this section may be made at any time during or before the financial year to which it relates.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment requiring an order imposing a limit on the capital expenditure of a foundation trust to relate to a single financial year. It clarifies that although the limit must relate to the whole financial year, the order imposing it may be made part-way through that year.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment requiring an order under new section 42B(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006 to relate to a single financial year.
Lord Kamall
(a) the reference” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on another amendment which provides that references in new section 63A of the NHS Act 2006 to effects of a decision in relation to certain matters include its effects in relation to inequalities with respect to those matters.
“(b) the reference to effects of a decision in relation to the health and well-being of the people of England includes a reference to its effects in relation to inequalities between the people of England with respect to their health and well-being;(c) the reference to effects of a decision in relation to the quality of services provided to individuals includes a reference to its effects in relation to inequalities between individuals with respect to the benefits that they can obtain from those services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that references in new section 63A of the NHS Act 2006 to effects of a decision in relation to certain matters include its effects in relation to inequalities with respect to those matters.
“NHS foundation trusts: duties in relation to climate change
After section 63A of the National Health Service Act 2006 (inserted by section 59 of this Act) insert—“63B Duties in relation to climate change etc(1) An NHS foundation trust must, in the exercise of its functions, have regard to the need to—(a) contribute towards compliance with—(i) section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (UK net zero emissions target), and(ii) section 5 of the Environment Act 2021 (environmental targets), and(b) adapt to any current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008.(2) In discharging the duty under this section, NHS foundation trusts must have regard to guidance published by NHS England under section 13ND.””Member’s explanatory statement
The new Clause would require NHS foundation trusts, in exercising their functions, to have regard to certain matters relating to the environment, including climate change.
Lord Kamall
“(2AA) For the purposes of subsection (2)(da) (as read with subsection (2A))—(a) a reference to the effects of decisions in relation to the health and well-being of the people of England includes a reference to the effects of the decisions in relation to inequalities between the people of England with respect to their health and well-being; (b) a reference to effects of decisions in relation to the quality of services provided to individuals includes a reference to the effects of the decisions in relation to inequalities between individuals with respect to the benefits that they can obtain from those services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that references in new subsection (2)(da) of section 96 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to effects of a decision in relation to certain matters include its effects in relation to inequalities with respect to those matters.
Lord Lansley
“(5A) Rules under subsection (1) may not be framed by reference to whether the provider is in the public or, as the case may be, private sector.”
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will not go on at great length because noble Lords have heard more than sufficient from me today, but this group brings us to what is known in the trade as the provider selection regime: that is, how the NHS goes about the process of commissioning services from a range of providers and the relationship between that and the choice that is available to patients. I am going to refer to my amendments, Amendments 98 and 99, and, without going on about it, I commend Amendment 80 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. Finding out whether people have actually experienced choice and whether that is helpful to them is a useful thing to do, and I am not sure whether it features in the current electronic referral system. It would be useful to add it in.
The words of Amendment 98 are in fact already in the regulations that the NHS currently lives by because, born of the previous experience when there were discriminatory payment arrangements for private sector providers relative to public sector providers—ie, more advantageous payment arrangements for the private sector than the public sector—in the 2012 legislation we legislated to prevent that happening in the future. The current Bill removes said prohibition on discrimination on the basis of the ownership, public or private ownership, of a provider.
Noble Lords might think, “Ah, this is trying to avoid us discriminating against the private sector.” This was actually included in order to prevent the Government or the NHS discriminating in favour of the private sector. There may be arguments for it in certain circumstances because NHS bodies often have, as it were, fully depreciated assets and to create additional capacity the private sector very often has to invest capital and has to meet the costs of capital as well as the revenue costs of providing services. None the less, we addressed all that and took the view that we did not want any discrimination: we wanted no competition on price, but we wanted competition on quality. That is why, to be perfectly frank, I am testing the Government’s intentions in omitting something that was a central plank of policy for the 2012 legislation.
On Amendment 99, if I recall there is language in the original White Paper from last year, which set the provisions for the Bill, which referred to “any qualified provider” and made it clear that it was the Government’s intention to maintain the existing choice arrangements and access to any qualified provider. Indeed, I think it said that it would “bolster” the system, although I am not sure whether that is happening anywhere. The amendment is really intended to test a particular issue that arose. I am a very sad person, and I was looking at the service conditions for the NHS standard contract; the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, will know them intimately. There is a point at which commissioners who are presented with people who wish to access other providers, who have a contract with another commissioner, are not required to extend that service to them. The way in which it was written in the standard contract was to talk about circumstances where the originating contract does not refer to the address—I think it said the postal address—included in the originating contract. My point to the Government is that this is absurd. There can be geographic limitations, but we should aim not to make them as limiting as the reference to a postal address in the originating contract would have made them.
The wider point is that, if one looks at the new provider selection regime, one sees that there is a process by which commissioners—the decision-making bodies commissioning services—go through a process of saying, “What are the circumstances of commissioning providers?” They ask whether it is circumstance 1, extending the existing arrangement; circumstance 2, going to a different provider; or circumstance 3, going to competition. The language of circumstance 2 is:
“where the decision-making body wants to use a different provider and the decision-making body considers it can identify a suitable provider without running a competitive procurement process”.
This is something that it will be readily able to do in many cases. A commissioner can say, “This is the circumstance. We want to go to a different provider and we know who we want to go to—that’s fine, we’ll give them the contract.”
Circumstance 3 is
“where the decision-making body cannot identify a single provider or group of providers that is most suitable without running a competitive process; or to test the market”.
The body could choose to test the market, but of course more than subtly. Whereas, in the past, the NHS tended to think that it needed to test the market in circumstances in which the legislation did not actually require it to, there is no such thing as compulsory competitive tendering in the 2012 legislation, or the regulations made under it. But now it has shifted completely the other way, and NHS bodies will be able broadly speaking to choose not to use competition at all. The question is whether that will really be sustainable. In the short run, access to the private sector may well be quite widespread, and there may well be a significant element of choice available to patients through the electronic referral service, but that may be closed down in years ahead, if these provisions are implemented in the way in which they are set out.
I issue a further warning to my noble friends. If you are a provider of services to the NHS and you believe that a decision has been made unfairly or inappropriately by the NHS, there is a standstill on the contract, you have 30 days, and you can send in a complaint, in effect, to the decision-making body, which then decides whether it has done the right thing. There is no independent process whatever, so it seems that the chances of providers resorting to law to challenge what they regard as unfair decisions on the part of decision-making bodies in the NHS rise dramatically with the implementation of these processes.
All that said, I hope what I can hear from my noble friends on the Front Bench is that what they said in the White Paper a year ago in February 2021 remains true: that they are going to sustain patient choice, that they will use the resources of NHS providers and beyond to enable us to fulfil our very demanding recovery programme, that they will think hard about whether the precise language in some of the respects that I have outlined is fair to providers, and that commissioners in the NHS will use their procurement capabilities to deliver best value for patients. I beg to move Amendment 98.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is contributing remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I start by commending Amendment 100 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and I look forward to hearing him speak on it. It is an excellent idea to ask people how much choice they have actually had when offered treatment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for explaining his two amendments, and I would like to say to him that he is not sad for carrying out his role in your Lordships’ House with interest and care. His expertise in matters that may leave others cold should be celebrated. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, ask that trade unions should be part of consultations on private providers, and that seems sensible.
I wish to focus, albeit briefly, on Amendment 106A, which proposes that Clause 70 be left out, and which will be spoken to later by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton; I apologise to her that under the remote rules I have to speak first. I will confine my remarks to the views of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s 15th report, in which paragraphs 17 and 18 make plain its views about these proposed procurement arrangements and regulations. The first point that it notes is that the memorandum, at paragraph 481, says that
“full analysis has not been completed and there has not been time to produce a more developed proposal.”
Why on earth do the Government wish to bring into force legislation that they admit they have not had time to analyse, let alone produce a more developed proposal for? We from our Benches, along with other noble Lords, have repeatedly said that the Cabinet Office procurement Bill is likely to overtake the needs for NHS-specific procurement regulations.
Paragraph 17 of the DPRRC Report gets straight to the heart of the issue and provides a response to the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has tabled, starting with Amendment 101 in this group. It says:
“We do not accept that the inclusion of regulation-making powers should be a cover for inadequately developed policy.”
It is therefore more than a little surprising to see a slew of government amendments on this issue that, in the group under discussion, strengthen the powers under regulation.
Paragraph 18 of the Delegated Powers Committee report states that:
“Ministers would not ordinarily propose clauses in one Bill possibly requiring imminent amendment in a subsequent Bill without expecting to face questions. The House may wish to seek further and better particulars from the Minister concerning the possible effect of any Cabinet Office procurement Bill on the Health and Care Bill, and … to press the Minister on why it was necessary to include provision, based on inadequately developed policy, in the Health and Care Bill when the Government intend to introduce a procurement Bill.”
Not only have we tried this at an earlier stage, but there have been meetings between Committee and Report, and it appears that the Government are determined to press on. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has concerns about the Government’s intentions on the clause and its amendment; if she chooses to call a Division on stand part, we from these Benches will support her.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 98A, 98B and 98C. Among other things, the Bill is designed to facilitate the outsourcing to private contractors of NHS services currently carried out in-house. That is the Government’s policy for the NHS, although it is firmly opposed by most of the citizens of this island.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 100 requires NHS England to
“conduct a public survey of whether patients have been offered choices about where they obtain treatment and must report to the Secretary of State what action they will take as a result of the survey.”
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Lansley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Cumberlege and Lady Brinton.
Currently, there is no regular survey of whether patients are aware of their right to choose or of how many have exercised it. The last NHS England official survey of whether patients were aware of their choices was in 2015, when just 47% of those questioned said they were aware.
Waiting times vary enormously by geography. Knowing about the right to choose could mean a significant cut in the waiting time for treatment. For example, waiting times for orthopaedic care vary from 89 weeks in Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to 25 weeks in the relatively nearby Milton Keynes trust. Recent polling by the Royal College of Surgeons showed that 73% of patients questioned would willingly travel to a surgical hub which was not their local hospital if they could be treated more quickly.
There is no system for monitoring whether patient choice is working. Amendment 100 fills this gap and restores the situation to where it was before 2015. I hope the Minister will accept this simple amendment in the interests of patients.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am implacably opposed to privatisation of the NHS—not for ideological reasons, although the Green Party is strongly opposed as well. I think it is inefficient. Privatisation has not worked. It has failed to deliver on promises to increase quality, decrease cost and help patients. Rather than save money through reduced bureaucracy, the main cost savings of privatisation seem to be in cutting the terms and conditions—chiefly the pay and pensions—of staff. If private companies can compete for public services, let them compete on a level playing field, rather than simply capturing staff and paying them less.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, explained his Amendment 98 because I had understood it completely the other way around—that he was protecting private services. I was going to have a word with him afterwards about it, but there is now no need.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, just said, most people in Britain do not want a privatised NHS. They want a public service because that is what will give them the best results.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, this group contains a number of helpful amendments. I welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled in response to the many and varied discussions we have had. I am grateful for this positive and constructive approach, which proposes transparency at the heart of procurement.
We have discussed with the Government at some length why the NHS has to have its own bespoke procurement regime, which the Bill paves the way for. We have seen two consultation documents about the scope, scale and nature of this bespoke regime. Although they seem quite sensible, we have been assured that the Government feel that the regulations will be based on a sound foundation.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, is quite right about patients not knowing their right to choose. It is a hole in the provision. The right to choose is very important. People absolutely do not know that they have it.
While not being explicit, the new providers’ selection regime will actually get us to where Labour tried to get in 2010 with the NHS as the preferred provider, at least as far as the many complex and expensive services provided by NHS trusts, FTs and other core patient-facing services are concerned. Therefore, the principle is fine. The problem is that it does not extend across everything that the NHS procures, and that is partly the nub of what my noble friend said in his amendments, which I will return to in a moment.
Our view is that in any circumstances where competitive procurement is to be used, the national rules apply, so why does the NHS need a bespoke system for all non-clinical stuff? We have never actually had an answer to that, except that the NHS comes up with wider regulations, and we feel that that it is a waste of time and effort. However, we have had ample assurances from the Government that the NHS bespoke regime will be properly documented and all the rules set out, with some route to enforcement and challenge. We are assured that there will be no award of contract without applying the process that is set out—no back doors and no flexibility when contracting with private companies. With those assurances in mind and the knowledge that campaigners and trade unions will be vigilant and might even stump up for judicial review, and because of the ICB amendments agreed earlier in the week, we will get more or less what we wanted and we will not try to remove Clause 70 from the Bill.
I turn to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Hendy, who has our sympathy and approval. Had we been discussing this at a different time of day, we may have sought to support some of his amendments, and certainly the spirit of them. He has posed a legitimate question to the Minister: why do the Government not insist on good employment of staff as a criterion for their procurement regime?
We on this side of the House remain opposed to the outsourcing of NHS-funded services such as cleaning, catering and many others because we can see that it has led to staff being transferred into the private sector, corners being cut and standards dropping. It has been a symptom of chronic underfunding and it is a terrible long-term strategy. It has of course been completely counterproductive because it has sometimes meant that our hospitals have not necessarily been cleaned, serviced or looked after as we might have wished them to be. We have tried at various stages to introduce safeguards and to outlaw altogether the NHS’s tax-dodging habit of setting up SubCos, but those are probably matters for another day.
I would say to my noble friend that I am not sure that changing the procurement regime is the best way forward for this issue, although he has our support in the politics and context in which he introduced his amendments.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, before addressing the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Warner, it may be helpful if I speak to the six government amendments in this group: Amendments 101 to 104, 106 and 107. The first five of these amendments would amend Clause 70, which inserts a new regulation-making power in relation to the procurement of healthcare services, Section 12ZB, into the NHS Act 2006. They amend the clause so that regulations, when they are made under this power, will have to include provision for procurement processes and objectives, for steps to be taken when competitively tendering and for transparency, fairness, verifying compliance and the management of conflicts of interest. Amendment 106 also requires NHS England to issue guidance on the regulations.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, in particular for the helpful explanation of the impact of the response to the consultation published yesterday, which I think moves us in the right direction on the service conditions in the standard contract on that point. I am grateful for my noble friend’s assurance on Amendment 98 as well. Clearly the power is available in the regulations to make sure that the non-discriminatory element of the procurement regulations can be brought forward in due course, so it need not be in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 98.
Lord Warner
“6H Survey relating to patient choiceNHS England must annually conduct a public survey of whether patients have been offered choices about where they obtain treatment and must report to the Secretary of State what action they will take as a result of the survey.”
Lord Warner (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurances on the issue of patient choice. I suggest that the arrangements that he outlined in his response to my amendment are not well known, even to those such as the Independent Healthcare Providers Network, so I wonder whether he might look at the arrangements for publicising that information. In the meantime, I shall not move my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the principal regulation-making power in relation to procurement so that regulations under the power will have to include provision for procurement processes and objectives.
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision specifying steps to be taken when following a competitive tendering process.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires procurement regulations to include provision specifying steps to be taken when following a competitive tendering process.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the changes made by another amendment to the principal regulation-making power in relation to procurement.
“(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must, in relation to the procurement of all health care services to which they apply, make provision for the purposes of—(a) ensuring transparency;(b) ensuring fairness;(c) ensuring that compliance can be verified;(d) managing conflicts of interest.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires procurement regulations to make provision, in relation to all health care services to which they apply, for the purposes of ensuring transparency and fairness and that compliance can be verified and managing conflicts of interest.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I shall not call Amendment 105, as it has been pre-empted by Amendment 103.
“(4) NHS England must publish such guidance as it considers appropriate about compliance with the regulations.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires NHS England to publish guidance about compliance with any procurement regulations that are made.
“(b) in section 272 (orders, regulations, rules and directions), in subsection (6), after paragraph (zzd), insert—“(zze) regulations under section 12ZB,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that regulations made under new section 12ZB of the National Health Service Act 2006 (as inserted by Clause 70 of the Bill) will be subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
“Health service procurement and supply chains: genocide convention obligations
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the purposes of ensuring that procurement of all goods and services for the purposes of the health service in England is consistent with the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), procurement is not consistent if a Minister of the Crown has assessed that there is a serious risk of genocide in the sourcing region.(3) A Minister of the Crown must make an assessment as to whether there is serious risk if the chair of a relevant select committee of either House of Parliament requests one, and must complete such assessment within two months.”
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I should note, for the convenience of the House, that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be taking part in this debate remotely.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, as we move to Amendment 108, I should declare my interests as set out in the register: my involvement in a number of all-party parliamentary groups, and the fact that I am patron of the Coalition for Genocide Response. I should also declare my support for the other two amendments in the group, Amendments 162 and 173, which will be spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who has trenchantly and consistently pursued the arguments around forced organ harvesting and the public exhibition of anonymous cadavers from Chinese jails. I have spoken in favour of those amendments previously and will not repeat my arguments today.
Like those two amendments, Amendment 108 is an all-party amendment, which was tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson of Abinger and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and by myself, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is a sponsor today. It would have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but he has had to self-isolate in Cumbria with Covid, and we all wish him a speedy return to his place.
Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, was able to attend an online meeting with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and he asked me to move the amendment in his place. I thank both Ministers for their constructive engagement, and perhaps I might pursue further with them some of the arguments and issues raised yesterday. During our discussion the department told me that it had found no evidence of child labour, forced labour or unethical behaviour. Indeed, that was a repeat of a statement made to me in a parliamentary reply by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, when he was a Minister.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is unwell, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his excellent introduction to Amendment 108, to which I have added my name. I also support the other two amendments in this group, which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who I commend for his consistent campaign on these issues over the years. His Amendment 162 would ensure that there must be informed consent, with no coercion or financial gain, when organs are donated or when UK citizens go abroad for transplants. Amendment 173 would ensure that cadavers would no longer be used for public display unless it is the body of a person which is at least 100 years old, because, as with Amendments 108 and 162, there is real concern that people have been forced to have organs removed, or their bodies have been used after their death—sometimes murder, sometimes execution—but without their consent.
Returning to Amendment 108, it has two clear objectives: the first is to prevent the Government procuring health service goods produced in regions where there is a serious risk of genocide. While the Government say there is no evidence, a New York Times investigation found that PPE made through the Xinjiang labour transfer programme was present in US and international healthcare systems. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, there is increasing evidence that the NHS has procured such items already.
The second objective is to create a process through which the UK Government can be required to assess regions for serious risk of genocide and publish their assessment. This is necessary because the UK Government have given out PPE contracts worth almost £150 million to Chinese firms with links to forced labour abuses in the Uyghur region.
The Government have said that genocide amendments are not appropriate in the Bill and that the Modern Slavery Act 2015 offers protection, but the reality is that the UK is not leading the world here. The US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act creates a “rebuttable presumption” banning all goods sourced in whole or in part from the Xinjiang region of China, unless clear and persuasive evidence can be provided to the contrary; and the European Union is now considering bringing forward new legislation to ban products made with forced labour from entering the European market. The UK’s Modern Slavery Act does not go nearly as far as either of these proposals, merely requiring that companies publish—but not that they act upon—modern slavery statements. People’s lives and human rights are at stake here. Frankly, it is time the UK followed suit with stronger legislation. This amendment would be a strong and careful start that means government and Parliament cannot look away. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
I shall speak very briefly, because I am conscious of the time and that we have a lot of business to do. This amendment seeks nothing more than to create another human rights threshold for health procurement, adding to those that are already in place, which seek to address slavery but have major shortcomings, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has just described. I keep hearing it being said that a health Bill is not the proper place for an amendment concerning genocide. Well, I am afraid that I do not agree. This is an appropriate place.
We are not asking the Government or the Department of Health to decide whether there is a genocide taking place; we are asking the Minister to take on the duty to assess whether the source of instruments, test kits, protective equipment or whatever may be from forced labour and a situation of slavery. Xinjiang province is the obvious place for us to be concerned about, but there are other places—for example, in India—that we should be concerned about too, and I think that placing that duty on the shoulders of the Minister is a way of concentrating minds. That is why I really press this amendment and I pay tribute to the way the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has so assiduously pursued this. That is all I wanted to say, but I will support this amendment and I urge the House to support it too.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great honour for my two amendments to be grouped with that in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Blencathra. As the noble Lord has discussed the supply chain, I should declare my interest as president of the Health Care Supply Association, although I am not speaking on its behalf when it comes to my strongly supporting his amendment, which sets the context for my own two amendments.
We debated this issue very fully in Committee. I think that the House believes strongly that the commercial exploitation of body parts in all forms is unethical and unsavoury. When it is combined with mass killing by an authoritarian state, we cannot stand by and do nothing. In 2019, the China Tribunal, led by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, stated:
“The Tribunal’s members are certain—unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt—that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”
In June this year, 12 UN special procedure experts raised the issue of forced organ harvesting with the Chinese Government in response to credible information that Falun Gong practitioners, Uighurs, Tibetans, Muslims and Christians had been killed for their organs in China.
Currently, human tissue legislation covers organ transplantation within the UK, where we have a very ethical approach, but it does not cover British citizens travelling abroad for transplants, and British taxpayers’ money will pay for anti-rejection medication regardless of where the organ was sourced or whether it was forcibly harvested from prisoners of conscience.
I shall not repeat all that I said in Committee, but I have had a helpful meeting with Ministers for which I thank them. In that meeting and in subsequent meetings, the Minister was concerned that my amendment in relation to organ tourism would penalise vulnerable people seeking to pay for a transplant. I have thought about that carefully, but, in the end—and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, expressed so well why this Bill is highly appropriate for these kind of amendments—we have to draw a line in the sand. That is particularly so today, in the horrific circumstances that we meet. We have to draw a line in the sand and send out a powerful message globally that we will not support these abhorrent practices in any way.
My Amendment 162 comes later, but I shall seek the opinion of the House at that time.
Baroness Northover (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has very effectively introduced the amendments to which I have put my name, Amendments 162 and 173, and I wish briefly to express the support of these Benches for those. We also support Amendment 108, to which my noble friend Lady Brinton has put her name.
As noble Lords know, we have been inching forward on these matters with Ministers, and I welcome that forward movement. I note, however, recent warnings from Ministers that, for example, there are “opportunity costs” in implementing these measures, as ensuring that proper standards are enforced requires effort and potential cost. I understand that. Nevertheless, we cannot allow ourselves to become complicit in any way in organ tourism where the source of those organs is forced or where selling the organ is to address appalling poverty.
Some say that this trade may be declining in and from China. If so, that is welcome and might reflect international pressure, not least on the Chinese medical profession. It is not clear that those involved in the China Tribunal and the Uyghur Tribunal would agree that it is declining.
Even if we were to accept that, and Ministers seemed to indicate that they thought that might be the case, we are also hearing now of an increase in the selling of organs in Afghanistan because of the dire situation there. There have been recent reports of journalists seeing the scars of those who have sold their kidneys. That is a terrible indictment of our walking away from Afghanistan and failing to address the appalling conditions that we have left there. How can we regard such potential “donors” as being anything other than the most extremely vulnerable? How can you put that up against the vulnerable who may need to have donations?
As for the bodies exhibitions, we have discussed before how distasteful they are—but then we realise with horror exactly where these bodies seem to have been sourced: among other things, from Chinese prisons. We should never have condoned that, turning a blind eye. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who argued in Committee that they should simply be banned. There is no reason whatever to agree to their continuation.
I now hear that the Government may argue—and this is incredibly familiar—that these amendments are flawed. As the noble Earl knows, often Ministers are given briefs that say, “This is a flawed amendment, so turn it back.” I am very familiar with them. In those circumstances, the best thing is for your Lordships to pass these amendments, because Ministers know, or should know, that the essence is extremely clear, and with government lawyers we can work out how best to sort out any unintended consequences. I hope that I do not hear anything about these amendments being flawed—and I say that to the Box. I therefore commend them to your Lordships.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, and I shall speak specifically and briefly to Amendments 162 and 173.
These amendments are updates to the Human Tissue Act, which was born out of public outrage following the Alder Hey scandal, when over 100,000 organs, body parts and entire bodies of foetuses and stillborn babies were stored in NHS facilities. The body parts of dead patients, including children, were removed without consent. Today, the Human Tissue Authority’s guiding principles, as set out in its code of practice, are consent, dignity, quality, honesty and openness. These principles should not only reflect how human tissue sourced from within our own nation is treated, we must treat human tissue and organs with the same principles when sourced overseas.
In China, as has been said, there is substantial evidence of Falun Gong practitioners and Uighurs—as well as some evidence of Tibetans and house Christians—being killed on demand for their organs. Blood is taken off them for tissue-typing at the time when they were taken into custody, often with no idea why they were taken into custody at all, other than that they belong to one of those groups. There is no consent, no dignity and no transparency.
On 7 December last year, the British Medical Association released a statement on the abuse of Uighurs in China, expressing
“grave concern regarding the situation in China and the continuing abuse of the Uyghur population of the country as well as other minorities.”
It went on to state:
“We are particularly alarmed by the reports of organ harvesting, forced birth prevention, and the use of genomics data for racial profiling.”
It urged
“the UK government and international actors to exert pressure on the Chinese government to cease its inhumane actions towards the Uyghurs”.
If we do not pass amendments as laid before the House today, we will be complicit with these practices, because we will be looking at them with Nelson’s eye, with all the evidence that we have that they are going on.
On Amendment 173, on the exhibition of whole bodies using a plastinated technique, I suggest that there is no transparency whatever. Any attempt to claim that there has been consent is extremely suspect, because consent is very easily falsified. I went to one of these exhibitions because I thought you ought to go and see what you are criticising. This was not an anatomical, educational experience but a visual display of plastinated bodies in all kinds of different poses. But the one that horrified me the most was a pregnant woman, quite advanced in her pregnancy and with the foetus in her womb, which had been plastinated. I do not believe that that woman would have given consent for plastination. That raised real questions as to why such an advanced foetus was in the womb of a dead woman without something there explaining the nature of her death, the cause of death and the circumstances in which she had decided to consent to such a procedure.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 108, while supporting the other two amendments introduced so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lady Northover, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke so eloquently.
I am completely in support of those amendments, but I wish to speak briefly to the genocide amendment today. On various occasions during the Covid pandemic questions were asked of the then Health Minister about the procurement of PPE. He was not able to give me a straight answer to say, “We can guarantee that no PPE procured could have had anything to do with slave labour or could have come from Xinjiang.”
The NHS seeks to be world leading. We all support it and want it to be able to deliver for every citizen in this country. But that should not be at the expense of the lives of those in other parts of the world. It is not good enough to say that we have the Modern Slavery Act if that will not lead to a change in practices. It is absolutely essential that our supply chains do not include anything that comes from forced labour.
If one looks at what is going on in Xinjiang, it is possible to barter to get numbers of people, just as it was 200 years ago during the slave trade. That is not acceptable. It may be the case that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, pointed out, we will be told, “This is not the right piece of legislation.” If it is not, what will the Government bring forward that will mean that every point of our supply chain—every part of government procurement—ensures that we are not procuring things that have been made using slave labour?
We must not be complicit. This House should support the amendments, and if the Minister is not able to support the amendment, perhaps he could come back with a revised and better version of the amendment that will do what we all seek to achieve.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly only to Amendment 108, which I understand the Government are likely to resist when my noble friend the Minister comes to speak. I say simply, very briefly, that to be persuasive, my noble friend has to explain how through administrative measures the National Health Service will achieve the effects of this amendment. He has to explain that in a credible way and that the effects will be rapid and comprehensive. Any idea that this will be kicked into a long review that ambles on and may or may not produce the effects required by at least the first two proposed new subsections of the amendment will lack credibility; I am less concerned about the chairman of the Select Committee part that comes in the third one. I would like my noble friend to know before he speaks that that is what I think we all want to hear.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, China has been found out. Thanks to surveillance and other types of technology, and courageous on-the-ground reporting, it is clear that China does use slave labour. As we know, the UK has a duty under the genocide convention, and there is strong evidence that much of the material produced by slave labour, even possibly by genocide, is being used by NHS staff—and even by noble Lords ourselves when we use lateral flow tests, since we are not confident about where they came from. They come from areas where there is serious risk of genocide and as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, it is not necessary to determine genocide in order to be obliged to do a risk assessment and take action; and we are not doing enough of that. Over half of these products come from places where there is no conflict, so action against conflict is not adequate. More needs to be done. We must not fail to do it because it is more convenient to buy products to keep us safe without investigating how they are produced. Our safety must not be on the backs of people whose rights, and even their lives, are being taken from them.
The same applies to organ-harvesting from unwilling donors. There is incontrovertible evidence that it is not just happening but happening increasingly, and it absolutely has to stop. My noble friend Baroness Northover made a strong case that the exhibiting of cadavers should not happen in a civilised society, and I hope that the Minister is going to tell us how the Government are going to stop it.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to give my strong support to Amendment 108, and I do so because of the terms of the genocide convention to which this Government are committed and are obligated to support. It is important for the House to note that genocide is not defined solely as mass killing. It is also defined as
“causing serious bodily or mental harm … deliberately inflicting … conditions of life calculated to”
destroy the protected group
“in whole or in part … imposing measures intended to prevent births”,
and
“forcibly transferring the children of the group to another group.”
The Government are a signatory to the genocide convention, and I think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is obligated by that signature to support this amendment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, it is impossible to turn away from the connection between procurement of products and services and the message and support that such procurement may give to those who seek to exploit, oppress, damage and murder.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for introducing this amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who we wish well. Genocide and the abuse of human rights do not respect the imposed boundaries of government departments, and that is why it is appropriate that these amendments, which have extensive support both inside and outside your Lordships’ House, have been tabled today. Amendment 108 has cross-party support and if the will of the House is tested, we on these Benches will support it.
The NHS is the biggest single procurer of medical products in the world. It has a huge amount of leverage to be a force for good or otherwise when it comes to ethical procurement. It can starve abusive regions of resources. It can also remove a veneer of acceptability from those regions.
If we are serious about being global Britain and a force for good in the world, we need to act as such. It is surely wrong that, for example, we are using bandages which have been produced by forced labour. We must hold the Government to their commitment to provide guidance and support to UK government bodies to use public procurement rules to exclude suppliers where there is sufficient evidence of human rights violations in any of their supply chains. As expressed by my noble friend Lady Kennedy, this is about giving the Minister the opportunity to act. It is about focusing minds. I hope that the amendment will find favour with the noble Earl.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Collins spoke of the need not to be tied down by a very strict legal definition of genocide. He also emphasised that we must focus on broader human rights issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, we need to take a comprehensive, joined-up approach. Amendment 108 gives us this opportunity.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for continuing to press home the need for action, as outlined in Amendments 162 and 173. We heard explicitly and movingly about the realities of how this affects people’s bodies, alive and dead, and the distaste and abuse related to it. It is surely right that UK citizens are safeguarded against complicity in forced organ harvesting as the result of genocide. Countries such as Spain, Italy, Belgium, Norway and Israel, among several others, have already taken action to prevent organ tourism in respect of China. We have the opportunity to do so today.
I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to accept these amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord and his officials for the opportunity to discuss these matters. I hope only that your Lordships’ House can assist in improving this aspect of the Bill by taking action, as we should, about genocide and the abuse of human rights.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group bring us to three discrete topics which are nevertheless linked by a common thread—that of human rights. Because they engage us in issues of great sensitivity, I begin by saying something that may sound unusual. There is probably no one in this Chamber who is not instinctively drawn towards these amendments. All three are honourably motivated. In pointing out any shortcomings, I would not want noble Lords to think that the Government did not understand or sympathise with why they have been tabled.
I will start with the issue of organ tourism. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I find it abhorrent that individuals exist who are in the business—often the lucrative business—of sourcing human organs from provenances that are both illegal and supremely unethical. They then entice desperate and seriously ill people to go to a foreign country to have such organs transplanted within them. This idea is unconscionable. As far as we can, we should have no truck with it. The Human Tissue Act already prohibits the giving of
“a reward for the supply of, or for an offer to supply any controlled material”
in any circumstance where a substantial part of the illicit transaction takes place in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
The Modern Slavery Act makes it an offence to arrange or facilitate another person’s travel, including travel outside the UK, for the purposes of their exploitation, which includes the supply of organs for reward in any part of the world. The law as it stands addresses a substantial element of potential criminality. How widespread is this criminality? What do we know about the scale of organ tourism as it relates to UK residents? I have obtained some figures from the department. In 2019-20, the last reporting year before international travel was curtailed by the pandemic, a total of 4,820 organ transplants took place in this country. At the same time, NHS Blood and Transplant data shows that only seven UK residents received a transplant abroad, many if not all legitimately, and had follow-up treatment in the UK.
Therefore I am thankful to say that the scale of the problem of illicit organ tourism, as it relates to UK residents, is small. If the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, were to say to me that one such case is one too many, I would agree, but the House should not support this amendment, because it is not right to support an amendment that could cause vulnerable transplant patients who receive a legitimate transplant overseas to face imprisonment because they may not have the right documentation. That is what the amendment could lead to. Checking such documentation and creating individually identifiable records for every UK patient who has received a transplant overseas would put healthcare professionals in an invidious and inappropriate position by blurring the line between medic and criminal investigator.
More to the point, it could also prevent those who legitimately receive an organ transplant abroad—particularly those from minority-ethnic backgrounds—from seeking follow-up treatment, for fear of being treated as a criminal suspect. Following that thought through, I say that the effect that this amendment could have in exacerbating health inequalities is likely to be far greater than its effect in deterring transplant tourism, especially, as I have emphasised, because there are already legal provisions in place covering most cases of organ tourism.
I listened with care to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, particularly regarding her examples of the exhibition that she went to. I join her in being somewhat incredulous that there could be consent to some of the exhibits that she witnessed. However, where consent has been obtained, it must be unequivocal. As I emphasised, the law as it stands now prohibits the exhibition of bodies or body parts where express consent cannot be fully demonstrated. I undertake to speak to the Human Tissue Authority, to see that, should there be another exhibition of this kind proposed, there is full transparency in the form of labels under each exhibit making clear how consent was obtained and what it consisted of.
Targeting those who receive an organ, rather than the traffickers and their customers who initiate or negotiate the arrangements, risks imprisoning vulnerable patients who may have been misled as to the provenance of their organ. That would be disproportionate. The Government’s view remains that the best approach is to continue targeting traffickers and their customers, while doing all that we can to help UK residents who are in need of an organ by focusing our efforts on improving the rates and outcomes of legitimate donations.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Before the noble Earl sits down, may I apologise to the House? I should have declared that I am the UK chair of Commonwealth Tribute to Life, which aims to establish a memorandum of understanding across the Commonwealth over ethical transplantation.
The Minister, in his reply, spoke of seven patients who are known to have travelled abroad for organs. Most of those were legally arranged, so the numbers are very small; yet the clinical services in the UK are not aware that it is illegal to arrange to purchase an organ abroad if most of that transaction happens in the UK, or to procure the travel to go. I wonder whether the Minister would be able to undertake to work with us in NHSBT to ensure that all the clinicians working in the field are aware of this and can brief patients appropriately at the time they sign up to be on the transplant list, so that they understand that, although they are eligible for a transplant, they should not be seeking transplants in other countries, even when tempted to do so. It can look quite alluring, and I am concerned that, within the profession itself, there might be some misunderstanding. I realise this is a difficult question and the Minister might prefer not to answer it now; it might be something we could discuss later.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, that is a perfectly valid question from the noble Baroness, and I would be happy to take that back to those in the Department of Health and Social Care who have direct responsibility in this area.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I know that this is a complex and long Bill, and that the House will want to move quite quickly to the next business. I will end by simply thanking every noble Lord who has participated in today’s debate, especially the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Merron, from the opposition Front Benches, and the noble Lords on the Government Benches who have supported the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, at every stage of the progress of this amendment.
I know that when the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that he was instinctively drawn to these amendments, and that he found many of these practices abhorrent, he was speaking as he feels. I am grateful to him, not only for the meeting that we had yesterday with the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, but for his promise to look at this further. Among those to whom I would like to introduce him is a Uighur surgeon I have met, who has given evidence here in the House about being forced to remove organs and to kill the patient in the course of that. This is the ethical issue here. If people profit from that in any way whatever, even if inadvertently, we must not be complicit.
A year ago, we were promised that there would be an urgent review of exports to Xinjiang and fines for businesses which failed to comply with the Modern Slavery Act, when parliamentary time allowed. Those things have not happened. The urgent review has just been completed, but it ended up dealing only with military exports and there have been no fines applied one year later. It is never the right Bill or the right time. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and I were told this on the telecommunications Bill, we were told it again on the then Trade Bill. We are told it on every Bill. That is why it is inevitable that we come back with amendments like this until the comprehensive plan, to which the noble Earl referred, actually happens.
The House really needs to send this amendment further. We have had between Committee and now for the Government to help us redraw it, if there are any defects or flaws. I am unaware of what they may be; they have never been pointed out to us. The noble Earl also knows that the Government could say to us, “Bring this back at Third Reading and we will help to draw up such an amendment.” However, I am told that this is not possible either. Therefore, the only way for us to ensure that this amendment can proceed and be perfected is to send it to another place. I am glad to be able to tell the House that a former leader of the Conservative Party, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, has agreed that he will personally promote this amendment if it is passed in your Lordships’ House today and take it further there. He says that he is with us 100%. I would like to seek the opinion of the House.
Lord Kamall
“Meaning of “health” in NHS Act 2006
In section 275(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006 (interpretation), at the appropriate place insert—““health” includes mental health;”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause clarifies that in the NHS Act 2006 “health” includes mental health (unless the context otherwise requires). Although the natural meaning of health is capable of including “mental health” the existing provisions of the Act are inconsistent about whether they mention mental health expressly which could cause confusion.
Lord Kamall
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Clause 79(3) of the Bill, which omits paragraph (c) of section 100(4) of the Care Act 2014.
Lord Warner )
“PART 1AHEALTH AND CARE SUSTAINABILITYOffice for Health and Care Sustainability
(1) There is to be a body corporate, independent of the Government, called the Office for Health and Care Sustainability (“the Office”) to safeguard the long-term sustainability of an integrated health and adult social care system for England. (2) The Office must be established within six months of the passing of this Act and must publish a report of its initial findings relating to its main functions within a year of its establishment.(3) The role of the Office is to continually assess the outlook for the health and care system over the coming five, 10 and 15 years.(4) The Office has no function in operational or service delivery aspects of the health and care system.(5) The Office must—(a) monitor and publish data relating to demographic trends, disease profiles and the likely pace of change relating to future service demands,(b) assess the workforce and skills mix required to respond to those changes and publish regular reports on those matters, and(c) consider the stability of health and adult social care funding relative to changing demographic and disease trends, including the alignment between health and adult social care funding, and publish regular reports.(6) The functions of the Office are to be exercised on behalf of the Crown as if it was a public department.(7) The Office is to consist of—(a) an executive chair appointed by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Public Accounts and Health Select Committees of the House of Commons,(b) two other members appointed by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Public Accounts and Health Select Committees of the House of Commons, and(c) two other members nominated by the Office and appointed by the Secretary of State.(8) The initial appointments under subsection (7) are for a term of five years and no more than two terms may be served.(9) The remuneration of the executive chair is to be agreed by the Secretary of State but may not be less than that paid to the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health and Social Care; and all other salaries and gratuities for members may be agreed by the Office with the consent of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.(10) The Office may employ staff on terms and remuneration consistent with that of the civil service.(11) The Office may—(a) establish such committees and sub-committees as it deems necessary,(b) determine its own procedures and those of its committees and sub-committees, and(c) do anything calculated to facilitate, or conducive or incidental to, the carrying out of any of its functions.(12) The annual budget of the Office is to be provided by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons.(13) The Office must keep proper accounts and records in relation to its accounts, and must prepare and publish each year an audited statement of accounts.(14) The Office must prepare an initial report on its work within one year of its establishment, and thereafter annually, and may at any time publish a report on its functions when it considers that this assists safeguarding the long-term sustainability of an integrated health and adult social care system in England.(15) The Secretary of State must lay any report prepared by the Office before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment implements recommendations 33 and 34 of the 2017 report by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care. It draws on the legislation setting up the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 112 is my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Scriven and Lord Kakkar. I am grateful for their support. This amendment goes much wider in terms of independence from the Secretary of State than Amendment 80, moved so convincingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, earlier today.
Amendment 112 establishes a new body to help to secure the long-term sustainability of our health and care system. That body is an independent office for health and care sustainability as recommended by this House’s Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and adult social care. This new body is based on the model of the Office for Budget Responsibility. That body is widely accepted as having worked well over a number of years. My amendment draws heavily on the 2011 legislation setting up the OBR.
The new office of health and care sustainability has three main functions which are set out clearly in the amendment, so in the interests of time I will not repeat them. The new body would look five to 10 to 15 years ahead and publish regular reports which would be laid before both Houses of Parliament. It would produce an initial baseline report within a year of its establishment. Like the OBR, the new body would have an executive chair and five members. The chair and two members would be appointed by the Health Secretary but—and this is a very big but—with the consent of the House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee and Health and Social Care Committee. The remaining two members would be chosen by the office itself. Like the OBR, the new body would not have a membership controlled by Ministers.
The new office of health and care sustainability would be much more independent of the Secretary of State than is provided for in Amendment 80. It would have a much wider remit in terms of improving the balance between the NHS and social care, on both staffing and funding. The greater long-term independence seems essential given that the Department of Health—now the Department of Health and Social Care—has a political and official track record which was revealed to the Lords Select Committee as pretty unsatisfactory.
The Department of Health has been failing to plan for the future for a very long time. The evidence given by its Permanent Secretary totally failed to convince the Select Committee that it took long-term planning seriously. That Permanent Secretary is still in place. I do not like personal attacks, but in evidence to the Select Committee this person actually said that he did not see long-term planning as part of his job description. So we have a situation where the long-term planning of the NHS and social care is simply not on the agenda of the government department responsible for it.
With this track record and the Covid recovery programme that the Department of Health and Social Care now faces, it seems to me a triumph of optimism over reality to rely on that department and its harassed political head to undertake long-term planning. I say that despite the House passing Amendment 80. We are looking for a situation in which there is more independence of the Secretary of State and, indeed, more independence in the collection of information, the sifting of that information, and the analysis that that information shows—and that covers funding as well as workforce issues.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of your Lordships’ ad hoc Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS. My noble friend Lord Warner has very clearly introduced the arguments summarised at that time, when your Lordships’ committee made its report, strongly supporting the establishment of an independent office for the sustainability of health and care, and I shall not repeat those arguments.
What was striking was Her Majesty’s Government’s response to that report and, indeed, to recommendations 32 to 34 in that report, which dealt with that specific question. To summarise, Her Majesty’s Government felt that that office was unnecessary and that the Office for National Statistics had much of the data publicly available to assist in this long-term planning activity. Clearly, that is not the case; it has not happened, and it is unlikely to happen.
It is essential, as we have heard, that such an office is established not only to deal with questions of workforce—my noble friend has identified the interview given by the right honourable Jeremy Hunt on the question of an independent office for questions of workforce—as sustainability of health and care goes far beyond workforce. A very careful and appropriately defined methodology and expertise needs to be brought together to ensure that we can plan on a definite basis and achieve the sustainability that every Member of your Lordships’ House clearly regards to be essential. I therefore hope that Her Majesty’s Government accept this amendment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, five years have passed since the ad hoc Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS, under the chairpersonship of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, recommended an office for health and care sustainability. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for bringing this amendment before your Lordships’ House. This is a clear direction to put sustainability at the heart of planning and is long overdue. So we on these Benches support the amendment, and I hope the Minister will accept this amendment as a way forward.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for bringing this debate before the House today. As mentioned in the debate in Committee, the specific functions described in Amendment 112 are crucial functions that the Government are committed to ensuring are discharged. This commitment is underlined by the fact that there are already bodies and mechanisms in place to fulfil these functions. These are core components of the Government’s commitment to evidence-based health provision. This commitment has been made clear in many of the Bill’s provisions, in our wider programme of public health reform and in the proposals set out in the Government’s plan for health and care.
The amendment makes recommendations on both appraisal and scrutiny of funding and of social and demographic trends. With regard to the monitoring of trends, the department already publishes data relating to disease profiles, which incorporates demographic trends where relevant. This is supported by independent academic modelling from the Care Policy Evaluation Centre, CPEC, to produce projections of the long-term demand on adult social care services. As for funding, noble Lords will also be aware that successive Governments have used the well-established spending review process to set public service budgets. This takes into account the needs of service users, but crucially also considers the fiscal context and how healthcare expenditure balances with the range of priorities across government.
As noble Lords have noted, aligned to those spending decisions, the Office for Budget Responsibility already scrutinises the Government’s fiscal approach and our management of fiscal risks. For example, in October 2021 the OBR provided an independent analysis of the Government’s reform to the funding of adult social care in England and has announced that it will provide more analysis of the long-term implications in its next fiscal sustainability report. There is also, as noble Lords will know, a wide range of highly influential non-governmental bodies dedicated to the kinds of functions proposed for this new body—the King’s Fund, the Health Foundation and the Nuffield Trust to name just three. All of these contribute richly to the public debate on financial sustainability and on the size and composition of the workforce, as well as other related issues, and to the ability of this House to scrutinise government decisions on spending and policy.
The Government therefore do not think that the creation of a further body would add value. At this crucial time for the health and care system, we must proceed with the reforms we have outlined. For these reasons I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, no chance. I wish to test the opinion of the House.